15 ms·

STFU About What Women Want

510 points by mikeleeorg 15y ago

einhverfr 15y ago
I agree. It seems a reinforcement rather than a critique of the TechCrunch piece though. The point abut the Tech Crunch piece was exactly this. Stop saying "we want women to..." and simply stand back and let women do what they want.
- lauraklein 15y ago
  I hope that wasn't the point I was making. The point I was trying to make was that telling people that, "most women want x" isn't helpful, regardless of whether it's true right at this moment in history. More to the point, it makes life harder for women who DO want to work at startups (whether or not they want to have babies), because it reinforces the stereotype that we don't want to work full time. I don't want an investor thinking that's true when I walk into a meeting to ask for money. I don't want a CEO thinking that's true when I'm looking for a job. I don't want them thinking it's true about all women, because it's not true about the woman who matters most to me - ME. It's about more than letting women do what they want. It's about believing women can do the things they want to do - in this case work at startups. It's about believing that many women do, in fact, want to work at startups and that more will want to work at startups if we talk about how awesome it is. It's about the fact that what we do want changes based on a lot of things that have nothing to do with biology or nature, and that sometimes changing what we want is a really good thing for everybody. Thanks for reading and commenting. I appreciate the feedback.
  - einhverfr 15y ago
    I do work in an area where women are extremely underrepresented--- open source software development. By some estimates, 1.5% of open source software developers are women (in contrast nearly 1/3rd of software developers with jobs are women). I have noticed a few things. The first is that women tend to report being hit on fairly frequently just because the gender ratios are skewed. This isn't the end of the world and workplace/professional society romances and sexual encounters are are not that uncommon so it's going to happen unless we decide sex isn't part of the human condition (which isn't going to work). The second is that the single most consistent annoyance mentioned to me is everyone asking "how do we get more women involved in open source?" This drives women away. The third is hard to quantify but my sense is that of the women who come to open source, the vast majority come to it through employment. They have a job, and this is a means to get that job done. You see a lot more men who are independent consultants and hobbyists, and these make up the bulk of most projects. I would say the ratio of hobbyists/consultants of men to women in open source is probably 100:1. If men get a job in open source it is more often through open source work, in other words participation is usually a career investment while for women it is more often something to do for a job. There are exceptions of course. And one shouldn't underestimate their importance--- my grandmother was programming computers in Fortran, as she was an astrophysics professor. However at some point I think it is important to realize that asking the question, "how do we get more women involved" misses the point, and in fact drives women away. It's a counterproductive strategy. Simply saying "you are welcome at the table" is IMO a far more helpful way to proceed.
    - hendrix 15y ago
      This. "How do we get more women in OSS?" is the same as saying "How do we get more male nurses"? If men want to become nurses, then they will become nurses, if women want to become open source software developers they will become OSS developers.
      - Anechoic 15y ago
        > If men want to become nurses, then they will become nurses, if women want to become open source software developers they will become OSS developers. That's true only if there are no institutional or cultural barriers. From reading the experience of women who are interested in OSS or men who are interested in becoming nurses, that does not seem to be the case.
      - einhverfr 15y ago
        I'd agree with this. The only exception really is to look at institutional (not cultural) barriers IMO. "Are we doing something that keeps people from being willing to have a seat at the table?" Cultural barriers are beyond our immediate control where they extend beyond an immediate institution. If nursing is seen as unmanly, then there's not a lot one can do about that. And very often well-meaning attempts to "fix" cultural problems ends up re-inforcing them. Culture is a very resilient, homeostatic thing, and indeed, the idea that "we know what's better for women than they do" is pretty obviously sexist, but it is the same thing that comes up when saying "how do we get more women involved in X." In general the only culture you can change is that of your own institutions, including your business and your family. That's it. Edit: Downvotes are a bit amusing. Guess someone finds the idea challenging?
        wpietri 15y ago
        Or fatuous. You've made a lot of sweeping assertions about what can be done about culture with no evidence and no obvious expertise. You could be right, of course, but a lot of the weaker responses to feminism have the same basic "no point in trying, ladies" conclusion that you do, and turn out to be suspiciously convenient for the speaker. So anybody with much history in this is not going to have time for resistance-is-futile comments whose supporting evidence is, "Gosh, that looks hard to me." That goes double for startup people. It's par for the course that half of everybody tells you your idea is wrong, unworkable, impossible, foolish, or dangerous, and that you shouldn't even try. You quickly learn not to listen to those people except to see (so rarely, alas) if they have some novel point.
  - learc83 15y ago
    >It's about believing that many women do, in fact, want to work at startups and that more will want to work at startups if we talk about how awesome it is. This seems to be going against your point that you shouldn't be telling people what women want to do. The author of the original article was making the point that people advocating that women work in startups (or have other professional careers) makes it hard for women like her, who don't want to do so. In summary, you say that the other side makes it hard "for women who DO want to work at startups". The other side says you make it hard for women who don't.
    - msbarnett 15y ago
      Given the gross disparity between the number of women having children and the social acceptability of that act vs the number of women working in startups, we can conclude that one of those two claims of "difficulty" is full of shit. There is no mass epidemic of women excluded from childbirth due to female targetted promotion of startup culture.
      - learc83 15y ago
        No there isn't, but if you'll notice I included startups as just a part of the overall drive. I'm not picking a side, but I can tell you from experience that many of the women I know, who happen to be stay at home moms, do feel embarrassed about what they do. And I do believe it's a result of career advocacy. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy, in one side telling the other to stop advocating because it causes difficulty for the former, without acknowledging that the former can use the exact same argument.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- CJefferson 15y ago
  I think you are being too generous to the Techcrunch piece. It wasn't saying "stand back and let women do what they want". It was saying women don't want to run high pressure startups, as their genetics and biological clocks tells them to settle down, have children, and only run little lifestyle business between having children. (I can dig out exact quotes for that, if anyone wants to to, but don't have time right now)
Vivtek 15y ago
Second this, on behalf of my wife, who is a theoretical physicist. Most women also don't want to do physics, because they'd rather have babies, or so she's always been told. And got passed over for a grant because she had a husband and therefore didn't need the money. I'm still pissed, not least because she's naive enough to believe it's right for her to be treated this way.
- einhverfr 15y ago
  My grandmother was a theoretical physicist (G. R. Caughlin, co-author of the FCZ papers on element formation in stars). She found it difficult to succeed as a woman in physics. She also raised four kids (without child care). She taught at Montana State University, Caltech, and others, and worked with Willie Fowler, Fred Hoyle, and other great minds of her day. However, having talked to women in academic sciences today, she had it easy. No long post-doc programs, tenure was an easier process, and so forth. I hear over and over from such women that they have to choose between having the family life they want and a tenure track. This is an indication of an institutional barrier to women in the field (as is your wife being passed up for the grant). These are the sort of things that need to be fixed. I am afraid simply asking how we encourage interest among women will make the problem worse because it will make the positions more competitive and hence lead to longer post-doc programs and more family sacrifices in order to achieve tenure. This gets back to my point. Focus on institutional issues only and stop worrying about outreach.
  - klipt 15y ago
    > choose between having the family life they want and a tenure track This is probably true to some extent for men too. Ultimately, the only biological difference is that men can delay family life longer with less risk of infertility (provided they have a younger partner).
- endtime 15y ago
  >Most women also don't want to do physics, because they'd rather have babies, or so she's always been told. Do you actually think this is not the case? The claimed causation seems weird, but it's clearly true that most women don't want to do physics (neither do most men, but even on top of that, certainly far fewer women than men want to). And I expect that most women want to have babies (though a lower percentage than those who don't want to do physics). >And got passed over for a grant because she had a husband and therefore didn't need the money. That sucks and is awful and wrong. I don't think it disproves the claim in the first sentence of your article though. Nor should it be justified thereby; your wife clearly does want to do physics if she's applying for grants, so it shouldn't apply to her.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
microarchitect 15y ago
Both Klein and Trunk seem to be missing the point that just because women are choosing do X instead of Y doesn't mean there's no sexism in the Y. Anyway, to me the arguments here about babies and startups are eerily reminiscent of the arguments against women becoming professors. Stuff like: women want to have babies, how will they advise their students when they're pregnant? They can't bring in grant money for a whole two years! Blah blah blah. Think of our academic standards. Fortunately that argument has been thoroughly debunked by the large number of successful female professors who are also mothers. Frankly, I don't buy the argument that having a pregnant co-founder hurts a startup. If women can get tenure at a top-10 university while raising a kid, I'm pretty sure they can also keep your startup going while raising a kid. EDIT: Heh, I've been downvoted. Why am I not surprised?
- learc83 15y ago
  It really depends on how you plan to run your startup. If you require 80 hour weeks then no, a women with a young child isn't going to cut it. However, neither is a man with a young child. If you are demanding that working for your startup is your employee's number 1 priority then you probably only want a specific type of person--young and single (male or female). However, if you run a more sane company married with 3 kids would probably work fine.
  - cperciva 15y ago
    If you require 80 hour weeks then no, a women with a young child isn't going to cut it. However, neither is a man with a young child. There is one difference, though: Males are more likely to postpone having kids for the sake of their career -- because men are biologically more likely to be able to postpone having kids. For a 35 year old childfree woman, having kids is practically "now or never"; for a 35 year old childfree man, having kids is simply a matter of waiting until the right moment and then finding an appropriately-aged woman.
    - todayiamme 15y ago
      Well just like the pill, science can come to our rescue over here too. As the costs associated with cryonically storing tissue drops with improvement in technology and methodology, sooner or later it will be possible for almost all women to get their eggs stored for later use in their 20s. Just imagine the tectonic shift that will take place when this happens. It will change the world in such a deep way that the pill will pale in comparison. Maybe future generations past that point will see such discussions as a symptom of a primitive society.
hendrix 15y ago
It does not matter what women want if the government is going to helpfully step in and make it impossible to function. Consider the federal law in regards to descrimination of women: [i]Sex Discrimination Title VII's broad prohibitions against sex discrimination specifically cover: Sexual Harassment - This includes practices ranging from direct requests for sexual favors to workplace conditions that create a hostile environment for persons of either gender, including same sex harassment. (The "hostile environment" standard also applies to harassment on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, age, and disability.) Pregnancy Based Discrimination - Pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions must be treated in the same way as other temporary illnesses or conditions.[/i] Ok so you can't as an employer treat your [women] employees having babies as a life-changing [and work-productivity reducing] event? WTF that might work at wal-mart or a retail-bank or even possibly a law firm, but that will not work at a startup where you have to give it 100% for >8hrs/day. What will actually happen is that the woman will be passed over for a man who has none of the associated liabilities. Then the VCs and unhappy bloggers will be scratching their heads as to why there are so few women in startups. Some of those VCs will also seek out women founders in some sort of PC guilt trip. http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html What needs to happen to fix this and ensure equality for women who do not want children is to get rid of the workplace discrimination laws regarding women. Then you can have a woman sign a contract that she will not have babies for x amount of time. Otherwise we will just have the current under-the-radar discrimination.
- rat87 15y ago
  Or you could sue the startups? Also have maternity leave for mothers and fathers like in other countries?
  - mbell 15y ago
    While I'd love to look at the world with rosy colored glasses I think this is simply unrealistic. While the parent post wasn't worded all that well (sorry). Its just a fact that it isn't realistic to expect a startup or even an early stage company to go without a critical member for several months, regardless of the cause of the absence. Male, Female, Trans-gender, pregnancy, bar fight, rehab, base jumping, whatever. The cause doesn't really matter, the effect is extremely destructive to the company and I feel it's reasonable to expect those in critical positions to protect themselves against such absences. Just to be clear, not singling out women here, there are many things everyone can do to avoid issues that could result in such an absence.
jyrkesh 15y ago
> So, when a publication like TechCrunch spews some nonsense about what women want, it means that the next time I go into an interview with a male founder (and they are overwhelmingly male for some reason that I’m not going to address here, but that Penelope assures us has nothing to do with bias) who has read that nonsense, he may be thinking, consciously or subconsciously, “she doesn’t really want to work at this startup because she wants to have a baby.” I don't think this is true at all. As the original TC article pointed out, the VC community bends over backwards to get as many women as they can working for and speaking about startups. And frankly, regardless of whether someone has told me or whether I believe that "most women want to have babies", when a woman walks into an interview for a startup position, I'm going to assume that she wants that position and probably doesn't want babies. That makes sense since she probably wouldn't be there otherwise.
9oliYQjP 15y ago
There's a group in Toronto called Ladies Learning Code http://ladieslearningcode.com/ http://ladieslearningcode.com/. The group holds events for learning how to program and constantly sells out. Once while I was in Toronto, I walked into the event and it was so jammed pack that you couldn't walk from one side of the room to the other. The women were diverse and evenly distributed in age and ethnic background. What interested me most is that the group session was held at 8 am on a Saturday. A couple of speculative thoughts later and it seemed to make sense to me. A lot of traditional developer events are held on weeknights and evenings and involve drinking at bars. If you're a woman with a family, it's probably preferable to carve out a Saturday morning, let your partner (hopefully, if you have one) take care of the kids and come home (not sloshed) to your family than it is to head down to the bar after work to have a couple of pints. It's just a lot more feasible.
- earbitscom 15y ago
  Or more to the article's point, maybe that was just when the venue was available.
- angrycoder 15y ago
  It is incredibly ironic that the top comment on an article blasting stereotypes is itself full of stereotypes.
  - TechNewb 15y ago
    Agreed. And would a man be welcome at such an event? Why name the event/group/org based off of a gender? Why not name it "learning code", and have marketing based towards women. Why exclude an entire gender, even if it is potentially already dominating the given market. I personally am not a believer in excluding, to argue for including. It seems counter productive.
    - pyre 15y ago
      I think it's funny that you got hung up on the idea that it was a 'ladies only' event. I think the post you were replying to was referring to this part of the parent post: > If you're a woman with a family, it's probably > preferable to carve out a Saturday morning, let your > partner (hopefully, if you have one) take care of the > kids and come home (not sloshed) to your family than > it is to head down to the bar after work to have a > couple of pints. It's just a lot more feasible. Obviously the only thing that is holding women back from going to other tech events is that the schedules aren't 'family friendly.' This conclusion would only make sense to me if there were some evidence presented that most/all of the women at the event had families of their own.
davros 15y ago
There seems to be an assumption that people (specifically women but same logic applies to men) can either be entrepreneurs or take care of young children, but not both. I believe that startups can provide the flexible environment that bigger corporations really struggle with. Focus on results not attendence, telecommuting, flexible hours, etc. Maybe some VCs would struggle with the concept, but I know it can work because I've seen it done.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- Mz 15y ago
  Would you know of resources that help share practical information on how to make that work? Often, simply don't know how and making some sweeping statement that "it can be done" is typically insufficient to help spread the practice. (I know from first-hand experience as my attempts to tell people "X can be done" often fail to fill them in adequately on the how and this gets me lots of ire. I struggle with that. I am often shocked at what other people do not know that I take for granted they "should" know. I continue to try to work on that.) Thanks.
  - davros 15y ago
    There is tons of HR documents that I researched, but in the end I found that the most important way to be genuinely flexible and family-friendly is to listen to your team and then think creatively about finding ways to fit with their needs but also of course be part of a dynamic business. I think its more about attitude and approach than the specific way you do things. Our business won two awards for our flexible practices and I believe that the reason we were ahead of the competition was that when the judges visited I was able to point to real results not just reams of HR policies and documents. Founders and early staff really understand that they need to get a lot done and they should also be highly motivated to contribute to the business success. If the business takes the view that it can give people some flexibility in return then this can work out really well. Some of the people who 'need' the flexibility should be founders or part of the key management team. In a startup you have tremendous control over the way your systems and business practices are set up - think about your family needs when doing this. Allow people to find what works for them. One of my cofounders found that she worked best after your children went to sleep and so we got a huge amount done between 9pm and midnight. We built all our systems so people could work from home and told our team that if their kids were sick they could work from home to look after them. That safety net makes a big difference.
thewisedude 15y ago
<Quote>...who has read that nonsense, he may be thinking, consciously or subconsciously, “she doesn’t really want to work at this startup because she wants to have a baby.” </Quote> Based on the above quote, looks like the author is more concerned about her interviewers being prejudiced against her(since she is a woman) rather than actually delving into the veracity of Tech Cruch's article! Stereotypes exist. Women like this. Men like that. Men are more good at that, Women are better at something else etc. As an interviewer if he is prejudiced, its not your fault. I would not think that it is right to control his prejudices by censorship of inconvenient truths!
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- Anechoic 15y ago
  > Stereotypes exist. Women like this. The specific problem she is addressing is that when a woman promulgates a stereotype about women, that makes it more believable (and acceptable) to men and, therefore, makes her life worse.
  - thewisedude 15y ago
    True... are we not taught to NOT judge based on prejudices? There are so many stereotypes not just about women and men that is. There are also stereotypes about Black, Latino, Asian communities etc. Sometimes they are spread by the people of these communities itself. However, its unprofessional or wrong(? for the lack of a better word) on anybody to judge them based on these stereotypes however tempting it might be, and that is what I think our education should teach us? I must admit they do make good late night comedies and hopefully nothing more!
    - einhverfr 15y ago
      The thing is, though, we think in patterns. Patterns mean prejudices. I.e. This person like this treated me like that. This other person is also like this so he will probably treat me similarly. When you look at how people in oral cultures think (see "Orality and Literacy" by Walter Ong and "Myth and Reality" by Mircea Eliade), it is entirely in this pattern-centric approach. This means I meet you and I assess you based on how you conform to everyone else I have ever met. Maybe that's not the same as judging you, but if it isn't the difference is quite narrow. I don't think there is an easy way out of this, nor do I think that would be productive. Instead I think the correct approach is to be aware of limitations and simply allow people room to break out of one's pre-conceived assessments (prejudices). I don't think you can wave away hundreds of thousands of years of human development just because for a few centuries here and there we've had widespread literacy with a largely phonetic writing system (note that excludes Arabic and Hebrew from consideration because of a lack of vowels in how the languages are usually written).
ygmelnikova 15y ago
"I'll be a wife and mother first, then First Lady". Jackie Kennedy Class, pure class.
- einhverfr 15y ago
  Class, pure class. And increasingly, limited to the upper class.
- captainaj 15y ago
  If you read her whole life story, it's not all "class". She is remembered as nothing but wife to someone else, and another rich someone else.
seanp2k2 15y ago
Good read that pretty much matches my thoughts on this issue. Thanks.
vacri 15y ago
I always find it weird when people say "what women want". As a man, I find it easiest to illustrate the problem to other men by simply asking them to substitute 'man' for 'woman'. Who can say "what men want". Sure, if you listen to comedians, all men want is sex sex sex and maybe some cars and sports. But even before you look at what individuals are like, if you just look at male archetypes, there are clear and common contradictions. The 98-pound weakling versus the musclebound beach bum. The hot stuff young programmer and the technically clueless grayhair. The expensively dressed high finance wizard and the smelly protesting hippy. The sex-mad pickup artist and the asexual man who simply isn't interested. The sports-mad bloke who hates literature and the literature-mad bloke who hates sports. The deadbeat dad versus the father who lives solely for his children. And these are just archetypes, not actual individuals. They all have different wants, needs, skills, and desires. How stupid it is to say "what men want", to lump half the race into one generalisation. If you're a man, you should feel viscerally just how bad this kind of generalisation is; why should women feel any different when the same is applied to them?
- mbell 15y ago
  I don't think the archetypes correspond to 'what people want'. The 98-pound weakling may be playing world of warcraft all day telling everyone he is a muscle bound beach head for example. People often want what they are not, "The grass is always greener". There is an artificial idealization of a 'Man' and an idealization of a 'Woman' in almost all societies around the world. The closeness of the individual to the idealization doesn't always change their want for the idealization. This is how we get media that often portrays the 'ideals' in various forms. People live vicariously through that which they want to be but aren't willing to work to be.
  - Fliko 15y ago
    This might be accurate with some people, but it can't be applied to everyone. I am working towards everything I want, and honestly I think the journey is much more desirable then the end result. A big part of Zen is killing your ego, and I think this is a very powerful mentality to have.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
desushil 15y ago
Well, I agree to how you pointed things out but look closer to the article in TC, she says: "People are pretty good at making choices for themselves. Men can stay home. Women can do startups. The thing is, most don’t want to. And that’s okay." And there is the word 'most' in her phrase. She's expressed her opinion pretty clearly. And believe me, most of the time you, me and all of us runs on generalization. So this is no exception, except you just freaked out because you just didn't fit in this generalization. And frankly, you are just as an exception to that. Now really, tell me how many of womens really think as you do?
Caligula 15y ago
Sigh. Another useless fucking article is #1 after 1 hour. It is the same tired discussion repeated ad nausea.
- captainaj 15y ago
  This is actually necessary because of the first nauseating article. If you correctly remember, another Techcrunch post also made the round before jwz set the record straight.
peterwwillis 15y ago
The problem with this article is that you're basically telling a stupid person to stop saying stupid things because other stupid people will listen to it. Also the post could be shortened to: "please don't make sweeping generalizations because the assumptions they create breeds stereotypes and hurts others' credibility."
- wpietri 15y ago
  I'm not seeing a problem there. TechCrunch is still somehow widely read. Pointing out stupidity there is a public service.
  - DanBC 15y ago
    The only problem is that stupid people don't stop being stupid just because you ask them. I agree with you that it's still important to point out that they're being stupid - if nothing else it lets isolated people know that there are people who don't agree with the stupid ones.
    - wpietri 15y ago
      Hmmm... I don't know about that. I've definitely stopped being stupid about some things because people have pointed out my idiocy to me. And I've certainly seen stupid people stop being quite so loudly stupid after feedback. Perhaps even Techcrunch can learn.
      - peterwwillis 15y ago
        We all sometimes say and do stupid things, sometimes without knowing it. We're flawed creatures and that's fine. But there's a point where some people just can't be helped. If a single editorial article in a tech blog will change how an individual thinks towards an entire gender, that person is so stupid that they will probably believe anything (or at least anything that confirms their already existing personal beliefs) and a response like the OP's will do little to help this person become less stupid. But that's just my stupid opinion.
gcb 15y ago
The writer of this article haven't read, or understood, the article it's arguing against...
skeptical 15y ago
I'm getting a bit tired of this fake modern-thinking. I don't think anyone is disregarding women right to self determination by making an observation that is obvious. There are jobs and social roles that are clearly perused mostly by men and some mostly by women. That's because man and women are different. There's nothing wrong with that, do we need to pretend that men and women are equal to grant equal rights to both? So this woman is an exception, minority if you prefer, but so what? I feel that is rather frustrating that people doesn't accept simple facts because they are not fashionable in today's ethics or are not politically correct. Everytime someone touches a sensitive subject concerning a group, there comes the sh*tstorm "you're stupid, I am the proof of the contrary". This is particularly sad among circles were one would expect to hear opinions of wise people. I guess even wise people have a hard time getting rid of taboos.
- zasz 15y ago
  It's not clear that some roles are genuinely best filled by women, and some by men. There is still plenty of institutional sexism that pushes people into certain roles. For example, many women in high-powered careers are forced out after they have children. Here is a link to a book on the subject: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/18616558/ns/today-books/t/why-are-moms-giving-careers/#.TuWoz3M4NCy http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/18616558/ns/today-books/t/why-... Here is an excerpt: "Married to fellow professionals, who face the same pressures at work that they do, women are home alone and go home because they have been unsuccessful in their efforts to obtain flexibility or, for those who were able to, because they found themselves marginalized and stigmatized, negatively reinforced for trying to hold on their careers after becoming mothers." You can't look at the general pattern of women failing to pursue their own startups and assume that this is because they actually chose to do so. You might as well step back in time and assume that the reason black people were picking cotton instead of determining their own fates is because they were biologically inferior. Culture matters.
  - skeptical 15y ago
    For me it is crystal clear. I have no problem stating that because I am not disrespecting nor discriminating anyone based on gender. What you mean by "it's not clear" is "there's no scientific proof", which is a totally different thing. You may argue that it's just something I believe in, but I'm ok everyone else's skepticism, I don't want to convince anybody of anything, but heck, don't disregard my opinion because of your taboos. Either way, even it wouldn't be clear, it wouldn't be clear that I'm wrong either. I agree with you that culture matters, and indeed people have been victim of discrimination countless times throughout mankind history. But you are afraid to admit that other aspects might matter too, because it touches your taboos. You pick the example of black people being thrown to the bottom of the social structure of north american society because you know that arguing with that is unethical by pretty much any current standard. But just recently James Watson stated precisely that the average black person is less intelligent than the average white. Now, quite frankly, I don't care about that subject, but would dare to discuss it or would you just claim that discussion is out of your ethical boundaries? It's not a nice topic to discuss, but because of that you can't just pretend there's nothing to discuss. I'm just saying: If your arguments are limited by taboos then your opinion can't be of much value.
seejay 15y ago
If everyone STFU about what others want or don't want and just focus more on they want out of their lives, world would be a far better place.
- davedx 15y ago
  Would the world have been a better place if the civil rights movement didn't have support from non-blacks? Positive change requires social awareness and participation in that change, not just from the disenfranchised.
captainaj 15y ago
I heard people telling women to have babies and quit learning (let alone starting their own companies) more than what Penelope has portrayed. Matter of fact, NO ONE has ever told me to join a startup or start one. This is not a first time Ms. Trunk has lectured us about what women think and want. Please, you don't present every female and all this talk should stop. Just do your job or whatever you want.
sgentle 15y ago
What you think women want is clearly not what women want, because you're only one woman, and women are complex and varied, and want different things. Also, I want a different thing to what you want, and lots of women want what I want. So you are twice as wrong! Not only for assuming other women want what you want, but also that you want what other women want! Ahem. Now that "want" and "women" have started sounding less like words and more like an arbitrary sequence of sounds, is anyone willing to contribute actual science to the discussion? People yelling at each other "women are like me!" "no, women are like me!" has, I fear, outlived its usefulness. Are there any studies covering, say, startup success by founder gender? Any documentation on attrition rates from school -> university -> startup? Has anyone even been bothered to go out and survey the attitudes of women towards startups rather than just projecting out their own? Rather than shutting up about what women want, I think a better idea would be to actually find out what women want. Gender balance is clearly an issue in the startup community, and not talking about it isn't likely to help. Are there few women because women don't want startups, or because startups don't want women? I don't know, but there comes a point where more opinions are not useful.
- ColdAsIce 15y ago
  Whats the problem with having babies? Its not impossible to continue working and taking care of babies, after the first year or so. During that year your husband can take the work or someone you hire. Big deal. This argument what woman want is kind of sexist, since nobody talked what men want before. Do whatever the fuck you want and stfu, gay, lesbian or baby-creator.
  - DuncanIdaho 15y ago
    What if most women want to take care of their own babies? Hell I'm a guy and I'm dreaming about downshifting or even ending my career when kids start coming. I have seen consumerist/careerist families and I believe I can do better. I actually WANT my kids to be raised in an atmosphere of (material) scarcity to the point that I could do without major wealth or if I acquired it I would "hide" it from them. I must be batshit crazy huh?
sktrdie 15y ago
Okay, now all we need is a "STFU women" post and we'll be back to regular HN interesting stuff :D
- coridactyl 15y ago
  Durr hurr yeah cuz women complain all the time about stupid shit amirite fellas? You are the problem.
deepkut 15y ago
Favorite Line: "I want to wear heals, and write jQuery, sometimes at the same time."
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
skrebbel 15y ago
(offtopic) Genuinely wondering: I once said "fuck" in an HN comments and got 10 downvotes. Used some other form of very slight rudeness (often considered humour where I'm from), downvotes again. Assumed it was an American thing, tried to adapt. Now here's an article full of profanity, and an excellent read also because of that, and nobody complains. Don't get me wrong: I love it. I wish everyone on the internet would get their heart out so well. I'm just surprised HN digs it so much. Anything cultural I'm missing?
- peterwwillis 15y ago
  Though using curses or any kind of emotional outburst is generally frowned upon intellectually, this is ignored if the person doing the outburst is seen to be fighting bigotry. 'Fuck Node.js' is not an acceptable use of cursing, but 'Fuck Sexism' is.
zeeed 15y ago
maybe it's just me but I can't see how either the original article nor the response is in any way significant. If I want to work in a startup wearing heels, then I'll do that. I don't need TC's permission for that. And, being in a startup, neither will I have the time to get upset about someone's opinion.
- refurb 15y ago
  I think the same way. If I want to do X and someone says "You shouldn't do that" or "that's weird" or "you don't have the skills" or whatever, I usually reply with a "OK", then go and do what I want to do. I certainly don't waste my energy trying to make sure that everyone else agrees with my choices in life.
mkramlich 15y ago
Almost all discussions involving women with respect to stereotypes or gender oppression will devolve into the same pedantic, non-productive patterns of fuzzy thinking and inability to discern causation from correlation. It's a topic where cherry-picked beliefs are so strong (on multiple sides) that it pulls you in like a black hole, and nothing truly useful, not even light, can escape. Just noise. I've learned to try to ignore it when I can. Especially here on HN, where the "college" demographic is particularly strong, and particularly susceptible to it. The takeaway I wish everyone would have, instead, would be something like, in short: that women and men are actually different. Get over it. Individuals vary. No shit! Unfair things happen. Get over it. Men get shit too. Not all things you don't like are because of your gender. Get over it. And there are plenty worse things, by orders of magnitude. Get over it.
- 5hoom 15y ago
  People (still) want to discuss complex issues that effect their career and everyday life. Get over it.
level09 15y ago
Just because the writer or a few women decided to do a startup or decided not to have children doesn't mean that most women are doing the same thing. I'm not a fan of tech crunch but their article was more of a general fact based on statistics and biology/nature, it should not be taken as an insult, starting a blog post with STFU won't make your point any more valid.
rythie 15y ago
"Twenty percent of women in their 40s do not have children" - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/us/13generations.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/us/13generations.html?_r=1
cafard 15y ago
What if I never Opened TFU?
Tichy 15y ago
I might be old fashioned, but I prefer science and statistics over anecdotes and political correctness. I don't have the numbers, but I think women wanting to have children is still a pretty likely thing. More women studying law could also happen for any number of reasons.
maz123 15y ago
Conjecture is common and there’s an irrefutable buzz in the air: Big Brother Bingo is about to drop anchor! Bingo pundits come in all shapes and sizes. We’ve got the small old ladies, the hip, hop and happening trendsetters, the carefree youth and even the up-and-coming professionals all turning to bingo. Is there something these folks know to the rest of us don’t? Learn more please go to-http://www.bigbrother-bingo.com http://www.bigbrother-bingo.com
yason 15y ago
The whole question seems to come from the fact that once there were a number of things women weren't allowed to do and it was deemed a good thing to work on making the playfield equal for both sexes. Turns out, when the gates were opened for one particular activity, many women did indeed want to engage in it and over the decades the gender distribution converged towards 50-50. However, from that, some people extrapolate that if the gender distribution in some field is too far from 50-50, then there must be something in place that is horrible and sexist and blocking women from that field. Even if technically women can apply and graduate, they conclude that the field still has some implied male chauvinist bias against women. Whenever it gets to that level, it's simply not an option that women might not want it that much. Other professions took maybe decades before women started to want them, even if they were already allowed to work as such. We can conclude that women today don't want programming badly enough. Those who do are already enrolled or working in the field. They are few in number but merely because they all had no alternative they could themselves live with. The situation today is that it's not mainstream for women to want to be programmers. It's not wrong, people just aren't sure yet. This is a very different statement that women aren't explicitly or implicitly allowed to become programmers in the contemporary society. Barring a few ploughers, people often don't know what they can want unless they see a supporting example many enough times. If you're a young woman and you don't know what you want to do, you could become a nurse. Many nurses started like that, regardless of whether they actually like their job or not. It might be a few decades forward when enough women get into programming, that the field also begins to appeal to women. It may also never happen, or it might happen to an extent. Maybe roughly 1% of women would like to do programming where as roughly 2% of men want to do it. If so, then eventually roughly one programmer out of three will be women some day, in the average. Thanks for the article writer to voice a loud counterexample that hopefully reset people into confusion about the true state of matters.
- Jem 15y ago
  It's thinking like yours that makes it harder to get into fields where women are "under" represented. I battled sexual harassment and derogatory comments about my ability to work in tech (specifically about being female) to stay in the industry. If I'd have bowed out years ago, it wouldn't have been because I "don't want programming badly enough" - it was because I had better things to do than prove my vagina makes absolutely no difference to my ability to code.
nevinera 15y ago
This is an appropriate argument basically any time somebody claims that [insert group here] [insert behavior of an individual here]. Groups of people do not behave uniformly; when they behave in statistically significant ways, it is not for uniform reasons. It's difficult to reason abstractly about groups as they actually are, so we abstract that group into a uniform body - that way we can make abstract claims about their behavior without the benefit of an education in applied statistics and research methodology. It's a useful tool for intuiting behavior, but try to avoid making non-statistical claims about the members of a group of people; you will almost never be correct.
- da_dude4242 15y ago
  I agree with you but in how many other cases are stats so clear? It's not like we're talking about slight margins of significants. ~80% of women have children and most of them do in what would peak years of career development. It doesn't explain why the female involvement for CS is so pathetically low compared to other traditionally male careers but I think it explains the values with which many woman are making lifestyle decisions.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
jhales 15y ago
The original article could have had the same title as this. The author was asking not to be told that 'women want to do startups.' The author of this article casts herself as defending herself against presumption, but she is really attacking another woman for trying to step away from the party line and not be judged for it.
gldalmaso 15y ago
I strongly agree to the issue at hand where we our patriarchal culture tends to drive women into choosing between career and babies. I also abhore the fact that our patriarchal culture makes it very very easy for men to have very little participation in taking care of our own children, therefore agravating the issue. I would suggest that 'maternity-leave' be exchanged for 'family-leave'. Why don't we allow fathers to participate in the care of a newborn baby, or rather, why don't we enforce it. Not only the care of the child is made a burden on women only, also they have to shoulder the career burden as well. Maybe then the whole thing would be less of a career problem and turn into a career fact, where it'd just acceptable that anyone employee might at sometime in the future need a leave to care for their respective babies and it would be just normal to do so.
- lemming 15y ago
  I would suggest that 'maternity-leave' be exchanged for 'family-leave'. Why don't we allow fathers to participate in the care of a newborn baby, or rather, why don't we enforce it. I believe that this is the case in many places in Northern Europe. From memory, in Sweden parental leave is 6 months and can be divided between the parents as desired. I believe there may also be a minimum for each of them. Edit: Wikipedia says it's actually 16 months, with 2 months minimum for the "minority" parent, usually the father.
shpoonj 15y ago
Umad? Stop whining and go make something.
leeoniya 15y ago
no one says ALL women. but MOST women DO want to dedicate time to families. just like many good drivers suffer high insurance premiums because of statistical truths about gender, age, car color, # of doors, etc. how about custody of children during divorce? there are many biases that also favor women because of statistics. we all have to deal with unfairness every day because we don't fit some stereotype. that's life, it's not fair.
billpatrianakos 15y ago
I thought the point of the original TC article was that we should stop pandering to women and it's jus a fact of life that a majority don't want to do startups. That's fine and it's not knocking women. I can see how the thing about babies could have confused people into missing that point though. I really think you don't see many women doing it because there aren't a whole lot trying to. When you've got an applicant pool that's already a minority and you know that a good portion of any applicant pool won't get a particular job then it's not at all surprising to see that not many women get into startups. If there aren't many trying to start and a good portion won't make it to the finish line then this isn't surprising. I think it's more wrong to try to find minority candidates for the sake of finding minority candidates. Let the cream rise and if it doesn't consist of minorities then it's not our fault.
coldarchon 15y ago
Not that I am a fan of sexism: "I am a woman. I want to work at a startup. I don’t want to have children." But to me she is just genetically a woman ..

510 points by mikeleeorg 15y ago

I agree. It seems a reinforcement rather than a critique of the TechCrunch piece though. The point abut the Tech Crunch piece was exactly this. Stop saying "we want women to..." and simply stand back and let women do what they want.

lauraklein 15y ago
I hope that wasn't the point I was making. The point I was trying to make was that telling people that, "most women want x" isn't helpful, regardless of whether it's true right at this moment in history. More to the point, it makes life harder for women who DO want to work at startups (whether or not they want to have babies), because it reinforces the stereotype that we don't want to work full time. I don't want an investor thinking that's true when I walk into a meeting to ask for money. I don't want a CEO thinking that's true when I'm looking for a job. I don't want them thinking it's true about all women, because it's not true about the woman who matters most to me - ME. It's about more than letting women do what they want. It's about believing women can do the things they want to do - in this case work at startups. It's about believing that many women do, in fact, want to work at startups and that more will want to work at startups if we talk about how awesome it is. It's about the fact that what we do want changes based on a lot of things that have nothing to do with biology or nature, and that sometimes changing what we want is a really good thing for everybody. Thanks for reading and commenting. I appreciate the feedback.
- einhverfr 15y ago
  I do work in an area where women are extremely underrepresented--- open source software development. By some estimates, 1.5% of open source software developers are women (in contrast nearly 1/3rd of software developers with jobs are women). I have noticed a few things. The first is that women tend to report being hit on fairly frequently just because the gender ratios are skewed. This isn't the end of the world and workplace/professional society romances and sexual encounters are are not that uncommon so it's going to happen unless we decide sex isn't part of the human condition (which isn't going to work). The second is that the single most consistent annoyance mentioned to me is everyone asking "how do we get more women involved in open source?" This drives women away. The third is hard to quantify but my sense is that of the women who come to open source, the vast majority come to it through employment. They have a job, and this is a means to get that job done. You see a lot more men who are independent consultants and hobbyists, and these make up the bulk of most projects. I would say the ratio of hobbyists/consultants of men to women in open source is probably 100:1. If men get a job in open source it is more often through open source work, in other words participation is usually a career investment while for women it is more often something to do for a job. There are exceptions of course. And one shouldn't underestimate their importance--- my grandmother was programming computers in Fortran, as she was an astrophysics professor. However at some point I think it is important to realize that asking the question, "how do we get more women involved" misses the point, and in fact drives women away. It's a counterproductive strategy. Simply saying "you are welcome at the table" is IMO a far more helpful way to proceed.
  - hendrix 15y ago
    This. "How do we get more women in OSS?" is the same as saying "How do we get more male nurses"? If men want to become nurses, then they will become nurses, if women want to become open source software developers they will become OSS developers.
    - Anechoic 15y ago
      > If men want to become nurses, then they will become nurses, if women want to become open source software developers they will become OSS developers. That's true only if there are no institutional or cultural barriers. From reading the experience of women who are interested in OSS or men who are interested in becoming nurses, that does not seem to be the case.
    - einhverfr 15y ago
      I'd agree with this. The only exception really is to look at institutional (not cultural) barriers IMO. "Are we doing something that keeps people from being willing to have a seat at the table?" Cultural barriers are beyond our immediate control where they extend beyond an immediate institution. If nursing is seen as unmanly, then there's not a lot one can do about that. And very often well-meaning attempts to "fix" cultural problems ends up re-inforcing them. Culture is a very resilient, homeostatic thing, and indeed, the idea that "we know what's better for women than they do" is pretty obviously sexist, but it is the same thing that comes up when saying "how do we get more women involved in X." In general the only culture you can change is that of your own institutions, including your business and your family. That's it. Edit: Downvotes are a bit amusing. Guess someone finds the idea challenging?
      - wpietri 15y ago
        Or fatuous. You've made a lot of sweeping assertions about what can be done about culture with no evidence and no obvious expertise. You could be right, of course, but a lot of the weaker responses to feminism have the same basic "no point in trying, ladies" conclusion that you do, and turn out to be suspiciously convenient for the speaker. So anybody with much history in this is not going to have time for resistance-is-futile comments whose supporting evidence is, "Gosh, that looks hard to me." That goes double for startup people. It's par for the course that half of everybody tells you your idea is wrong, unworkable, impossible, foolish, or dangerous, and that you shouldn't even try. You quickly learn not to listen to those people except to see (so rarely, alas) if they have some novel point.
- learc83 15y ago
  >It's about believing that many women do, in fact, want to work at startups and that more will want to work at startups if we talk about how awesome it is. This seems to be going against your point that you shouldn't be telling people what women want to do. The author of the original article was making the point that people advocating that women work in startups (or have other professional careers) makes it hard for women like her, who don't want to do so. In summary, you say that the other side makes it hard "for women who DO want to work at startups". The other side says you make it hard for women who don't.
  - msbarnett 15y ago
    Given the gross disparity between the number of women having children and the social acceptability of that act vs the number of women working in startups, we can conclude that one of those two claims of "difficulty" is full of shit. There is no mass epidemic of women excluded from childbirth due to female targetted promotion of startup culture.
    - learc83 15y ago
      No there isn't, but if you'll notice I included startups as just a part of the overall drive. I'm not picking a side, but I can tell you from experience that many of the women I know, who happen to be stay at home moms, do feel embarrassed about what they do. And I do believe it's a result of career advocacy. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy, in one side telling the other to stop advocating because it causes difficulty for the former, without acknowledging that the former can use the exact same argument.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
CJefferson 15y ago
I think you are being too generous to the Techcrunch piece. It wasn't saying "stand back and let women do what they want". It was saying women don't want to run high pressure startups, as their genetics and biological clocks tells them to settle down, have children, and only run little lifestyle business between having children. (I can dig out exact quotes for that, if anyone wants to to, but don't have time right now)

Vivtek 15y ago

Second this, on behalf of my wife, who is a theoretical physicist. Most women also don't want to do physics, because they'd rather have babies, or so she's always been told. And got passed over for a grant because she had a husband and therefore didn't need the money. I'm still pissed, not least because she's naive enough to believe it's right for her to be treated this way.

einhverfr 15y ago
My grandmother was a theoretical physicist (G. R. Caughlin, co-author of the FCZ papers on element formation in stars). She found it difficult to succeed as a woman in physics. She also raised four kids (without child care). She taught at Montana State University, Caltech, and others, and worked with Willie Fowler, Fred Hoyle, and other great minds of her day. However, having talked to women in academic sciences today, she had it easy. No long post-doc programs, tenure was an easier process, and so forth. I hear over and over from such women that they have to choose between having the family life they want and a tenure track. This is an indication of an institutional barrier to women in the field (as is your wife being passed up for the grant). These are the sort of things that need to be fixed. I am afraid simply asking how we encourage interest among women will make the problem worse because it will make the positions more competitive and hence lead to longer post-doc programs and more family sacrifices in order to achieve tenure. This gets back to my point. Focus on institutional issues only and stop worrying about outreach.
- klipt 15y ago
  > choose between having the family life they want and a tenure track This is probably true to some extent for men too. Ultimately, the only biological difference is that men can delay family life longer with less risk of infertility (provided they have a younger partner).
endtime 15y ago
>Most women also don't want to do physics, because they'd rather have babies, or so she's always been told. Do you actually think this is not the case? The claimed causation seems weird, but it's clearly true that most women don't want to do physics (neither do most men, but even on top of that, certainly far fewer women than men want to). And I expect that most women want to have babies (though a lower percentage than those who don't want to do physics). >And got passed over for a grant because she had a husband and therefore didn't need the money. That sucks and is awful and wrong. I don't think it disproves the claim in the first sentence of your article though. Nor should it be justified thereby; your wife clearly does want to do physics if she's applying for grants, so it shouldn't apply to her.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

microarchitect 15y ago

Both Klein and Trunk seem to be missing the point that just because women are choosing do X instead of Y doesn't mean there's no sexism in the Y. Anyway, to me the arguments here about babies and startups are eerily reminiscent of the arguments against women becoming professors. Stuff like: women want to have babies, how will they advise their students when they're pregnant? They can't bring in grant money for a whole two years! Blah blah blah. Think of our academic standards. Fortunately that argument has been thoroughly debunked by the large number of successful female professors who are also mothers. Frankly, I don't buy the argument that having a pregnant co-founder hurts a startup. If women can get tenure at a top-10 university while raising a kid, I'm pretty sure they can also keep your startup going while raising a kid. EDIT: Heh, I've been downvoted. Why am I not surprised?

learc83 15y ago
It really depends on how you plan to run your startup. If you require 80 hour weeks then no, a women with a young child isn't going to cut it. However, neither is a man with a young child. If you are demanding that working for your startup is your employee's number 1 priority then you probably only want a specific type of person--young and single (male or female). However, if you run a more sane company married with 3 kids would probably work fine.
- cperciva 15y ago
  If you require 80 hour weeks then no, a women with a young child isn't going to cut it. However, neither is a man with a young child. There is one difference, though: Males are more likely to postpone having kids for the sake of their career -- because men are biologically more likely to be able to postpone having kids. For a 35 year old childfree woman, having kids is practically "now or never"; for a 35 year old childfree man, having kids is simply a matter of waiting until the right moment and then finding an appropriately-aged woman.
  - todayiamme 15y ago
    Well just like the pill, science can come to our rescue over here too. As the costs associated with cryonically storing tissue drops with improvement in technology and methodology, sooner or later it will be possible for almost all women to get their eggs stored for later use in their 20s. Just imagine the tectonic shift that will take place when this happens. It will change the world in such a deep way that the pill will pale in comparison. Maybe future generations past that point will see such discussions as a symptom of a primitive society.

hendrix 15y ago

It does not matter what women want if the government is going to helpfully step in and make it impossible to function. Consider the federal law in regards to descrimination of women: [i]Sex Discrimination Title VII's broad prohibitions against sex discrimination specifically cover: Sexual Harassment - This includes practices ranging from direct requests for sexual favors to workplace conditions that create a hostile environment for persons of either gender, including same sex harassment. (The "hostile environment" standard also applies to harassment on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, age, and disability.) Pregnancy Based Discrimination - Pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions must be treated in the same way as other temporary illnesses or conditions.[/i] Ok so you can't as an employer treat your [women] employees having babies as a life-changing [and work-productivity reducing] event? WTF that might work at wal-mart or a retail-bank or even possibly a law firm, but that will not work at a startup where you have to give it 100% for >8hrs/day. What will actually happen is that the woman will be passed over for a man who has none of the associated liabilities. Then the VCs and unhappy bloggers will be scratching their heads as to why there are so few women in startups. Some of those VCs will also seek out women founders in some sort of PC guilt trip. http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html What needs to happen to fix this and ensure equality for women who do not want children is to get rid of the workplace discrimination laws regarding women. Then you can have a woman sign a contract that she will not have babies for x amount of time. Otherwise we will just have the current under-the-radar discrimination.

rat87 15y ago
Or you could sue the startups? Also have maternity leave for mothers and fathers like in other countries?
- mbell 15y ago
  While I'd love to look at the world with rosy colored glasses I think this is simply unrealistic. While the parent post wasn't worded all that well (sorry). Its just a fact that it isn't realistic to expect a startup or even an early stage company to go without a critical member for several months, regardless of the cause of the absence. Male, Female, Trans-gender, pregnancy, bar fight, rehab, base jumping, whatever. The cause doesn't really matter, the effect is extremely destructive to the company and I feel it's reasonable to expect those in critical positions to protect themselves against such absences. Just to be clear, not singling out women here, there are many things everyone can do to avoid issues that could result in such an absence.

jyrkesh 15y ago

> So, when a publication like TechCrunch spews some nonsense about what women want, it means that the next time I go into an interview with a male founder (and they are overwhelmingly male for some reason that I’m not going to address here, but that Penelope assures us has nothing to do with bias) who has read that nonsense, he may be thinking, consciously or subconsciously, “she doesn’t really want to work at this startup because she wants to have a baby.” I don't think this is true at all. As the original TC article pointed out, the VC community bends over backwards to get as many women as they can working for and speaking about startups. And frankly, regardless of whether someone has told me or whether I believe that "most women want to have babies", when a woman walks into an interview for a startup position, I'm going to assume that she wants that position and probably doesn't want babies. That makes sense since she probably wouldn't be there otherwise.

9oliYQjP 15y ago

There's a group in Toronto called Ladies Learning Code http://ladieslearningcode.com/ http://ladieslearningcode.com/. The group holds events for learning how to program and constantly sells out. Once while I was in Toronto, I walked into the event and it was so jammed pack that you couldn't walk from one side of the room to the other. The women were diverse and evenly distributed in age and ethnic background. What interested me most is that the group session was held at 8 am on a Saturday. A couple of speculative thoughts later and it seemed to make sense to me. A lot of traditional developer events are held on weeknights and evenings and involve drinking at bars. If you're a woman with a family, it's probably preferable to carve out a Saturday morning, let your partner (hopefully, if you have one) take care of the kids and come home (not sloshed) to your family than it is to head down to the bar after work to have a couple of pints. It's just a lot more feasible.

earbitscom 15y ago
Or more to the article's point, maybe that was just when the venue was available.
angrycoder 15y ago
It is incredibly ironic that the top comment on an article blasting stereotypes is itself full of stereotypes.
- TechNewb 15y ago
  Agreed. And would a man be welcome at such an event? Why name the event/group/org based off of a gender? Why not name it "learning code", and have marketing based towards women. Why exclude an entire gender, even if it is potentially already dominating the given market. I personally am not a believer in excluding, to argue for including. It seems counter productive.
  - pyre 15y ago
    I think it's funny that you got hung up on the idea that it was a 'ladies only' event. I think the post you were replying to was referring to this part of the parent post: > If you're a woman with a family, it's probably > preferable to carve out a Saturday morning, let your > partner (hopefully, if you have one) take care of the > kids and come home (not sloshed) to your family than > it is to head down to the bar after work to have a > couple of pints. It's just a lot more feasible. Obviously the only thing that is holding women back from going to other tech events is that the schedules aren't 'family friendly.' This conclusion would only make sense to me if there were some evidence presented that most/all of the women at the event had families of their own.

davros 15y ago

There seems to be an assumption that people (specifically women but same logic applies to men) can either be entrepreneurs or take care of young children, but not both. I believe that startups can provide the flexible environment that bigger corporations really struggle with. Focus on results not attendence, telecommuting, flexible hours, etc. Maybe some VCs would struggle with the concept, but I know it can work because I've seen it done.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
Mz 15y ago
Would you know of resources that help share practical information on how to make that work? Often, simply don't know how and making some sweeping statement that "it can be done" is typically insufficient to help spread the practice. (I know from first-hand experience as my attempts to tell people "X can be done" often fail to fill them in adequately on the how and this gets me lots of ire. I struggle with that. I am often shocked at what other people do not know that I take for granted they "should" know. I continue to try to work on that.) Thanks.
- davros 15y ago
  There is tons of HR documents that I researched, but in the end I found that the most important way to be genuinely flexible and family-friendly is to listen to your team and then think creatively about finding ways to fit with their needs but also of course be part of a dynamic business. I think its more about attitude and approach than the specific way you do things. Our business won two awards for our flexible practices and I believe that the reason we were ahead of the competition was that when the judges visited I was able to point to real results not just reams of HR policies and documents. Founders and early staff really understand that they need to get a lot done and they should also be highly motivated to contribute to the business success. If the business takes the view that it can give people some flexibility in return then this can work out really well. Some of the people who 'need' the flexibility should be founders or part of the key management team. In a startup you have tremendous control over the way your systems and business practices are set up - think about your family needs when doing this. Allow people to find what works for them. One of my cofounders found that she worked best after your children went to sleep and so we got a huge amount done between 9pm and midnight. We built all our systems so people could work from home and told our team that if their kids were sick they could work from home to look after them. That safety net makes a big difference.

thewisedude 15y ago

<Quote>...who has read that nonsense, he may be thinking, consciously or subconsciously, “she doesn’t really want to work at this startup because she wants to have a baby.” </Quote> Based on the above quote, looks like the author is more concerned about her interviewers being prejudiced against her(since she is a woman) rather than actually delving into the veracity of Tech Cruch's article! Stereotypes exist. Women like this. Men like that. Men are more good at that, Women are better at something else etc. As an interviewer if he is prejudiced, its not your fault. I would not think that it is right to control his prejudices by censorship of inconvenient truths!

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
Anechoic 15y ago
> Stereotypes exist. Women like this. The specific problem she is addressing is that when a woman promulgates a stereotype about women, that makes it more believable (and acceptable) to men and, therefore, makes her life worse.
- thewisedude 15y ago
  True... are we not taught to NOT judge based on prejudices? There are so many stereotypes not just about women and men that is. There are also stereotypes about Black, Latino, Asian communities etc. Sometimes they are spread by the people of these communities itself. However, its unprofessional or wrong(? for the lack of a better word) on anybody to judge them based on these stereotypes however tempting it might be, and that is what I think our education should teach us? I must admit they do make good late night comedies and hopefully nothing more!
  - einhverfr 15y ago
    The thing is, though, we think in patterns. Patterns mean prejudices. I.e. This person like this treated me like that. This other person is also like this so he will probably treat me similarly. When you look at how people in oral cultures think (see "Orality and Literacy" by Walter Ong and "Myth and Reality" by Mircea Eliade), it is entirely in this pattern-centric approach. This means I meet you and I assess you based on how you conform to everyone else I have ever met. Maybe that's not the same as judging you, but if it isn't the difference is quite narrow. I don't think there is an easy way out of this, nor do I think that would be productive. Instead I think the correct approach is to be aware of limitations and simply allow people room to break out of one's pre-conceived assessments (prejudices). I don't think you can wave away hundreds of thousands of years of human development just because for a few centuries here and there we've had widespread literacy with a largely phonetic writing system (note that excludes Arabic and Hebrew from consideration because of a lack of vowels in how the languages are usually written).

ygmelnikova 15y ago

"I'll be a wife and mother first, then First Lady". Jackie Kennedy Class, pure class.

einhverfr 15y ago
Class, pure class. And increasingly, limited to the upper class.
captainaj 15y ago
If you read her whole life story, it's not all "class". She is remembered as nothing but wife to someone else, and another rich someone else.

seanp2k2 15y ago

Good read that pretty much matches my thoughts on this issue. Thanks.

vacri 15y ago

I always find it weird when people say "what women want". As a man, I find it easiest to illustrate the problem to other men by simply asking them to substitute 'man' for 'woman'. Who can say "what men want". Sure, if you listen to comedians, all men want is sex sex sex and maybe some cars and sports. But even before you look at what individuals are like, if you just look at male archetypes, there are clear and common contradictions. The 98-pound weakling versus the musclebound beach bum. The hot stuff young programmer and the technically clueless grayhair. The expensively dressed high finance wizard and the smelly protesting hippy. The sex-mad pickup artist and the asexual man who simply isn't interested. The sports-mad bloke who hates literature and the literature-mad bloke who hates sports. The deadbeat dad versus the father who lives solely for his children. And these are just archetypes, not actual individuals. They all have different wants, needs, skills, and desires. How stupid it is to say "what men want", to lump half the race into one generalisation. If you're a man, you should feel viscerally just how bad this kind of generalisation is; why should women feel any different when the same is applied to them?

mbell 15y ago
I don't think the archetypes correspond to 'what people want'. The 98-pound weakling may be playing world of warcraft all day telling everyone he is a muscle bound beach head for example. People often want what they are not, "The grass is always greener". There is an artificial idealization of a 'Man' and an idealization of a 'Woman' in almost all societies around the world. The closeness of the individual to the idealization doesn't always change their want for the idealization. This is how we get media that often portrays the 'ideals' in various forms. People live vicariously through that which they want to be but aren't willing to work to be.
- Fliko 15y ago
  This might be accurate with some people, but it can't be applied to everyone. I am working towards everything I want, and honestly I think the journey is much more desirable then the end result. A big part of Zen is killing your ego, and I think this is a very powerful mentality to have.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

desushil 15y ago

Well, I agree to how you pointed things out but look closer to the article in TC, she says: "People are pretty good at making choices for themselves. Men can stay home. Women can do startups. The thing is, most don’t want to. And that’s okay." And there is the word 'most' in her phrase. She's expressed her opinion pretty clearly. And believe me, most of the time you, me and all of us runs on generalization. So this is no exception, except you just freaked out because you just didn't fit in this generalization. And frankly, you are just as an exception to that. Now really, tell me how many of womens really think as you do?

Caligula 15y ago

Sigh. Another useless fucking article is #1 after 1 hour. It is the same tired discussion repeated ad nausea.

captainaj 15y ago
This is actually necessary because of the first nauseating article. If you correctly remember, another Techcrunch post also made the round before jwz set the record straight.

peterwwillis 15y ago

The problem with this article is that you're basically telling a stupid person to stop saying stupid things because other stupid people will listen to it. Also the post could be shortened to: "please don't make sweeping generalizations because the assumptions they create breeds stereotypes and hurts others' credibility."

wpietri 15y ago
I'm not seeing a problem there. TechCrunch is still somehow widely read. Pointing out stupidity there is a public service.
- DanBC 15y ago
  The only problem is that stupid people don't stop being stupid just because you ask them. I agree with you that it's still important to point out that they're being stupid - if nothing else it lets isolated people know that there are people who don't agree with the stupid ones.
  - wpietri 15y ago
    Hmmm... I don't know about that. I've definitely stopped being stupid about some things because people have pointed out my idiocy to me. And I've certainly seen stupid people stop being quite so loudly stupid after feedback. Perhaps even Techcrunch can learn.
    - peterwwillis 15y ago
      We all sometimes say and do stupid things, sometimes without knowing it. We're flawed creatures and that's fine. But there's a point where some people just can't be helped. If a single editorial article in a tech blog will change how an individual thinks towards an entire gender, that person is so stupid that they will probably believe anything (or at least anything that confirms their already existing personal beliefs) and a response like the OP's will do little to help this person become less stupid. But that's just my stupid opinion.

gcb 15y ago

The writer of this article haven't read, or understood, the article it's arguing against...

skeptical 15y ago

I'm getting a bit tired of this fake modern-thinking. I don't think anyone is disregarding women right to self determination by making an observation that is obvious. There are jobs and social roles that are clearly perused mostly by men and some mostly by women. That's because man and women are different. There's nothing wrong with that, do we need to pretend that men and women are equal to grant equal rights to both? So this woman is an exception, minority if you prefer, but so what? I feel that is rather frustrating that people doesn't accept simple facts because they are not fashionable in today's ethics or are not politically correct. Everytime someone touches a sensitive subject concerning a group, there comes the sh*tstorm "you're stupid, I am the proof of the contrary". This is particularly sad among circles were one would expect to hear opinions of wise people. I guess even wise people have a hard time getting rid of taboos.

zasz 15y ago
It's not clear that some roles are genuinely best filled by women, and some by men. There is still plenty of institutional sexism that pushes people into certain roles. For example, many women in high-powered careers are forced out after they have children. Here is a link to a book on the subject: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/18616558/ns/today-books/t/why-are-moms-giving-careers/#.TuWoz3M4NCy http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/18616558/ns/today-books/t/why-... Here is an excerpt: "Married to fellow professionals, who face the same pressures at work that they do, women are home alone and go home because they have been unsuccessful in their efforts to obtain flexibility or, for those who were able to, because they found themselves marginalized and stigmatized, negatively reinforced for trying to hold on their careers after becoming mothers." You can't look at the general pattern of women failing to pursue their own startups and assume that this is because they actually chose to do so. You might as well step back in time and assume that the reason black people were picking cotton instead of determining their own fates is because they were biologically inferior. Culture matters.
- skeptical 15y ago
  For me it is crystal clear. I have no problem stating that because I am not disrespecting nor discriminating anyone based on gender. What you mean by "it's not clear" is "there's no scientific proof", which is a totally different thing. You may argue that it's just something I believe in, but I'm ok everyone else's skepticism, I don't want to convince anybody of anything, but heck, don't disregard my opinion because of your taboos. Either way, even it wouldn't be clear, it wouldn't be clear that I'm wrong either. I agree with you that culture matters, and indeed people have been victim of discrimination countless times throughout mankind history. But you are afraid to admit that other aspects might matter too, because it touches your taboos. You pick the example of black people being thrown to the bottom of the social structure of north american society because you know that arguing with that is unethical by pretty much any current standard. But just recently James Watson stated precisely that the average black person is less intelligent than the average white. Now, quite frankly, I don't care about that subject, but would dare to discuss it or would you just claim that discussion is out of your ethical boundaries? It's not a nice topic to discuss, but because of that you can't just pretend there's nothing to discuss. I'm just saying: If your arguments are limited by taboos then your opinion can't be of much value.

seejay 15y ago

If everyone STFU about what others want or don't want and just focus more on they want out of their lives, world would be a far better place.

davedx 15y ago
Would the world have been a better place if the civil rights movement didn't have support from non-blacks? Positive change requires social awareness and participation in that change, not just from the disenfranchised.

captainaj 15y ago

I heard people telling women to have babies and quit learning (let alone starting their own companies) more than what Penelope has portrayed. Matter of fact, NO ONE has ever told me to join a startup or start one. This is not a first time Ms. Trunk has lectured us about what women think and want. Please, you don't present every female and all this talk should stop. Just do your job or whatever you want.

sgentle 15y ago

What you think women want is clearly not what women want, because you're only one woman, and women are complex and varied, and want different things. Also, I want a different thing to what you want, and lots of women want what I want. So you are twice as wrong! Not only for assuming other women want what you want, but also that you want what other women want! Ahem. Now that "want" and "women" have started sounding less like words and more like an arbitrary sequence of sounds, is anyone willing to contribute actual science to the discussion? People yelling at each other "women are like me!" "no, women are like me!" has, I fear, outlived its usefulness. Are there any studies covering, say, startup success by founder gender? Any documentation on attrition rates from school -> university -> startup? Has anyone even been bothered to go out and survey the attitudes of women towards startups rather than just projecting out their own? Rather than shutting up about what women want, I think a better idea would be to actually find out what women want. Gender balance is clearly an issue in the startup community, and not talking about it isn't likely to help. Are there few women because women don't want startups, or because startups don't want women? I don't know, but there comes a point where more opinions are not useful.

ColdAsIce 15y ago
Whats the problem with having babies? Its not impossible to continue working and taking care of babies, after the first year or so. During that year your husband can take the work or someone you hire. Big deal. This argument what woman want is kind of sexist, since nobody talked what men want before. Do whatever the fuck you want and stfu, gay, lesbian or baby-creator.
- DuncanIdaho 15y ago
  What if most women want to take care of their own babies? Hell I'm a guy and I'm dreaming about downshifting or even ending my career when kids start coming. I have seen consumerist/careerist families and I believe I can do better. I actually WANT my kids to be raised in an atmosphere of (material) scarcity to the point that I could do without major wealth or if I acquired it I would "hide" it from them. I must be batshit crazy huh?

sktrdie 15y ago

Okay, now all we need is a "STFU women" post and we'll be back to regular HN interesting stuff :D

coridactyl 15y ago
Durr hurr yeah cuz women complain all the time about stupid shit amirite fellas? You are the problem.

deepkut 15y ago

Favorite Line: "I want to wear heals, and write jQuery, sometimes at the same time."

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

skrebbel 15y ago

(offtopic) Genuinely wondering: I once said "fuck" in an HN comments and got 10 downvotes. Used some other form of very slight rudeness (often considered humour where I'm from), downvotes again. Assumed it was an American thing, tried to adapt. Now here's an article full of profanity, and an excellent read also because of that, and nobody complains. Don't get me wrong: I love it. I wish everyone on the internet would get their heart out so well. I'm just surprised HN digs it so much. Anything cultural I'm missing?

peterwwillis 15y ago
Though using curses or any kind of emotional outburst is generally frowned upon intellectually, this is ignored if the person doing the outburst is seen to be fighting bigotry. 'Fuck Node.js' is not an acceptable use of cursing, but 'Fuck Sexism' is.

zeeed 15y ago

maybe it's just me but I can't see how either the original article nor the response is in any way significant. If I want to work in a startup wearing heels, then I'll do that. I don't need TC's permission for that. And, being in a startup, neither will I have the time to get upset about someone's opinion.

refurb 15y ago
I think the same way. If I want to do X and someone says "You shouldn't do that" or "that's weird" or "you don't have the skills" or whatever, I usually reply with a "OK", then go and do what I want to do. I certainly don't waste my energy trying to make sure that everyone else agrees with my choices in life.

mkramlich 15y ago

Almost all discussions involving women with respect to stereotypes or gender oppression will devolve into the same pedantic, non-productive patterns of fuzzy thinking and inability to discern causation from correlation. It's a topic where cherry-picked beliefs are so strong (on multiple sides) that it pulls you in like a black hole, and nothing truly useful, not even light, can escape. Just noise. I've learned to try to ignore it when I can. Especially here on HN, where the "college" demographic is particularly strong, and particularly susceptible to it. The takeaway I wish everyone would have, instead, would be something like, in short: that women and men are actually different. Get over it. Individuals vary. No shit! Unfair things happen. Get over it. Men get shit too. Not all things you don't like are because of your gender. Get over it. And there are plenty worse things, by orders of magnitude. Get over it.

5hoom 15y ago
People (still) want to discuss complex issues that effect their career and everyday life. Get over it.

level09 15y ago

Just because the writer or a few women decided to do a startup or decided not to have children doesn't mean that most women are doing the same thing. I'm not a fan of tech crunch but their article was more of a general fact based on statistics and biology/nature, it should not be taken as an insult, starting a blog post with STFU won't make your point any more valid.

rythie 15y ago

"Twenty percent of women in their 40s do not have children" - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/us/13generations.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/us/13generations.html?_r=1

cafard 15y ago

What if I never Opened TFU?

Tichy 15y ago

I might be old fashioned, but I prefer science and statistics over anecdotes and political correctness. I don't have the numbers, but I think women wanting to have children is still a pretty likely thing. More women studying law could also happen for any number of reasons.

maz123 15y ago

Conjecture is common and there’s an irrefutable buzz in the air: Big Brother Bingo is about to drop anchor! Bingo pundits come in all shapes and sizes. We’ve got the small old ladies, the hip, hop and happening trendsetters, the carefree youth and even the up-and-coming professionals all turning to bingo. Is there something these folks know to the rest of us don’t? Learn more please go to-http://www.bigbrother-bingo.com http://www.bigbrother-bingo.com

yason 15y ago

The whole question seems to come from the fact that once there were a number of things women weren't allowed to do and it was deemed a good thing to work on making the playfield equal for both sexes. Turns out, when the gates were opened for one particular activity, many women did indeed want to engage in it and over the decades the gender distribution converged towards 50-50. However, from that, some people extrapolate that if the gender distribution in some field is too far from 50-50, then there must be something in place that is horrible and sexist and blocking women from that field. Even if technically women can apply and graduate, they conclude that the field still has some implied male chauvinist bias against women. Whenever it gets to that level, it's simply not an option that women might not want it that much. Other professions took maybe decades before women started to want them, even if they were already allowed to work as such. We can conclude that women today don't want programming badly enough. Those who do are already enrolled or working in the field. They are few in number but merely because they all had no alternative they could themselves live with. The situation today is that it's not mainstream for women to want to be programmers. It's not wrong, people just aren't sure yet. This is a very different statement that women aren't explicitly or implicitly allowed to become programmers in the contemporary society. Barring a few ploughers, people often don't know what they can want unless they see a supporting example many enough times. If you're a young woman and you don't know what you want to do, you could become a nurse. Many nurses started like that, regardless of whether they actually like their job or not. It might be a few decades forward when enough women get into programming, that the field also begins to appeal to women. It may also never happen, or it might happen to an extent. Maybe roughly 1% of women would like to do programming where as roughly 2% of men want to do it. If so, then eventually roughly one programmer out of three will be women some day, in the average. Thanks for the article writer to voice a loud counterexample that hopefully reset people into confusion about the true state of matters.

Jem 15y ago
It's thinking like yours that makes it harder to get into fields where women are "under" represented. I battled sexual harassment and derogatory comments about my ability to work in tech (specifically about being female) to stay in the industry. If I'd have bowed out years ago, it wouldn't have been because I "don't want programming badly enough" - it was because I had better things to do than prove my vagina makes absolutely no difference to my ability to code.

nevinera 15y ago

This is an appropriate argument basically any time somebody claims that [insert group here] [insert behavior of an individual here]. Groups of people do not behave uniformly; when they behave in statistically significant ways, it is not for uniform reasons. It's difficult to reason abstractly about groups as they actually are, so we abstract that group into a uniform body - that way we can make abstract claims about their behavior without the benefit of an education in applied statistics and research methodology. It's a useful tool for intuiting behavior, but try to avoid making non-statistical claims about the members of a group of people; you will almost never be correct.

da_dude4242 15y ago
I agree with you but in how many other cases are stats so clear? It's not like we're talking about slight margins of significants. ~80% of women have children and most of them do in what would peak years of career development. It doesn't explain why the female involvement for CS is so pathetically low compared to other traditionally male careers but I think it explains the values with which many woman are making lifestyle decisions.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

jhales 15y ago

The original article could have had the same title as this. The author was asking not to be told that 'women want to do startups.' The author of this article casts herself as defending herself against presumption, but she is really attacking another woman for trying to step away from the party line and not be judged for it.

gldalmaso 15y ago

I strongly agree to the issue at hand where we our patriarchal culture tends to drive women into choosing between career and babies. I also abhore the fact that our patriarchal culture makes it very very easy for men to have very little participation in taking care of our own children, therefore agravating the issue. I would suggest that 'maternity-leave' be exchanged for 'family-leave'. Why don't we allow fathers to participate in the care of a newborn baby, or rather, why don't we enforce it. Not only the care of the child is made a burden on women only, also they have to shoulder the career burden as well. Maybe then the whole thing would be less of a career problem and turn into a career fact, where it'd just acceptable that anyone employee might at sometime in the future need a leave to care for their respective babies and it would be just normal to do so.

lemming 15y ago
I would suggest that 'maternity-leave' be exchanged for 'family-leave'. Why don't we allow fathers to participate in the care of a newborn baby, or rather, why don't we enforce it. I believe that this is the case in many places in Northern Europe. From memory, in Sweden parental leave is 6 months and can be divided between the parents as desired. I believe there may also be a minimum for each of them. Edit: Wikipedia says it's actually 16 months, with 2 months minimum for the "minority" parent, usually the father.

shpoonj 15y ago

Umad? Stop whining and go make something.

leeoniya 15y ago

no one says ALL women. but MOST women DO want to dedicate time to families. just like many good drivers suffer high insurance premiums because of statistical truths about gender, age, car color, # of doors, etc. how about custody of children during divorce? there are many biases that also favor women because of statistics. we all have to deal with unfairness every day because we don't fit some stereotype. that's life, it's not fair.

billpatrianakos 15y ago

I thought the point of the original TC article was that we should stop pandering to women and it's jus a fact of life that a majority don't want to do startups. That's fine and it's not knocking women. I can see how the thing about babies could have confused people into missing that point though. I really think you don't see many women doing it because there aren't a whole lot trying to. When you've got an applicant pool that's already a minority and you know that a good portion of any applicant pool won't get a particular job then it's not at all surprising to see that not many women get into startups. If there aren't many trying to start and a good portion won't make it to the finish line then this isn't surprising. I think it's more wrong to try to find minority candidates for the sake of finding minority candidates. Let the cream rise and if it doesn't consist of minorities then it's not our fault.

coldarchon 15y ago

Not that I am a fan of sexism: "I am a woman. I want to work at a startup. I don’t want to have children." But to me she is just genetically a woman ..