9 ms·

This Is What Tech's Ugly Gender Problem Really Looks Like

40 points by caio1982 12y ago

therogerwilco 12y ago
I DID NOT CHOOSE TO BE A MAN WHEN I WAS BORN. DO NOT GO SO LOW AS TO CALL ME A 'PROBLEM' BASED PURELY FROM THE OBSERVATION OF MY GENDER.
sp332 12y ago
therogerwilco: No one called you a problem. Thanks for not being part of the problem. Now can we stop ignoring the problem?
paulhauggis 12y ago
"or every story you hear about investors behaving badly," Specifically with investors, how are you going to legislate against how someone feels about investing their own money? If they don't want to invest in a woman company, it's their right. "Why do I have to go to gender-specific investors? Our company is pretty gender agnostic, at this point." Investors are very fickle with their money. The gender-specific investor might have a higher rate of investing in women founded companies. You may not like this, but it may give you a higher chance. There are also investors that are biased against the type of company you have. Some refuse to invest in social networking companies. "When you’re a single mother, says Sheri Atwood, founder of SupportPay, it’s even tougher to be taken seriously" I don't think it's because you are a woman. An investor might think that you don't have the time and energy to spend 100% on your company, which is true if you have a child at home with nobody else but you. "They saw that my being a woman and my age was an asset" So you spend an entire article talking about how you don't want to be discriminated against because you are a woman..and then conclude that you only got an investment because you are a woman?! How about..they liked your product/company idea and you and think you will succeed?Investors talk money. They want to see an ROI. "Now, we’re in a time where someone says something horribly racist" Now we are in a time where you accidentally say something that is construed as racist, and the Twitter mob gets you fired. The Mozilla CEO even had to step down because he donated a few hundred dollars to a campaign he believed in 10 years ago. If I would have gotten someone fired at a christian owned company for donating to a pro-gay marriage fund, there would be outrage. It's outrageous to me that free speech is being eroded every day and the same people that write articles like this about discrimination support it, because it coincides with their beliefs.
- sp332 12y ago
  No one mentioned legislation. This is a cultural problem, not a legal problem.
- justinpaulson 12y ago
  > It's outrageous to me that free speech is being eroded every day and the same people that write articles like this about discrimination support it, because it coincides with their beliefs. Free speech is a right given by the government. It does not have anything to do with your employer firing you for making a racist remark. How have any of your examples expressed an erosion of freedom of speech? I see no mention of the government arresting anyone for their comments.
  - streptomycin 12y ago
    Free speech is a right given by the government. That's not all it is. When you say "free speech" you mean "free speech with regards to government censorship", but many other people just mean "free speech" in general. Like, the ability to freely speak about something without being harshly punished for that speech, regardless of who does the punishing.
    - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
      Ok, but there is no civil right to that kind.
    - justinpaulson 12y ago
      If people mean "the ability to freely speak about something without being harshly punished for that speech, regardless of who does the punishing" when they say "free speech" then they have no idea what they are talking about, and they should be corrected. Such a thing does not exist, and it makes no sense. You can not expect to freely bad-mouth your employer or make remarks that go against an organization's beliefs without any repercussions from the employer or organization.
      - 12y ago
izzydata 12y ago
I find it very hard to believe that this supposed investor blatantly told her that women are inferior and then she politely said thank you and left. I'd have to see this in person to ever believe that actually happened. I'm willing to believe it is some exaggeration after she was declined and now she is upset and thinks it is because she is a women. I'll probably get downvoted, but I'm just really skeptical of this story. To be clear I have no problem with women and am a strong advocate of equality, but this just sounds fake to make a point.
- foolrush 12y ago
  If you stretch a little, it is possible you can see the inherent enculturation of ideology within your statement. A) Why does it sound “fake”? B) Why would you have to see this in person to believe it? C) Can you see the metanarratives you constructed in the “I'm willing to believe...” sentence?
  - izzydata 12y ago
    It sounds fake because I've never experienced a professional interaction of such a condescending manner. I'd have to see it to believe it simply because it sounds so fake. I'd be willing to believe something that is far more plausible than something that isn't.
    - foolrush 12y ago
      The reasons _why_ something sounds illegitimate can be ideological. Every single woman could list off a number of things that have been said to her over the course of her life that would sound “fake” due to their horrific content, and relative to normative white male experience. “The most common thing I hear from other women is: ‘Oh the stories I’ll tell once I’m far enough along that I don’t have to worry about being shamed,’” Misogyny runs deeper than logic in much the same way other ideological constructs lead to cognitive biases.
    - PhasmaFelis 12y ago
      > It sounds fake because I've never experienced a professional interaction of such a condescending manner. You haven't experienced anti-female bigotry because you aren't female. I would venture to guess--and I could certainly be wrong--that you've also never experienced anti-black or anti-gay bigotry because you aren't either of those things, either. There's nothing wrong with that, of course. But you need to realize that the fact that it doesn't happen around you doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
orclev 12y ago
It sort of annoys me how the article keeps talking about a gender problem in "tech" and yet I see no actual mention of anyone technical in the entire article (other than at least some of the people pitching). The article should have been called the gender problem in venture capital. A angel investor or a VC is not someone in tech, they're first and foremost all about business, just because what your pitching is technical doesn't automatically transform the situation into a technical one, it's still business. My guess is it's a lot harder to pitch a story about business people discriminating against women (classic glass ceiling story), than it is the current fad of lambasting the tech sector as being misogynistic. Edit: This may have come off as more critical of the article than I intended. The article is good and does have a point, it just annoys me that it makes it sound like tech is to blame when this is really just a facet of the existing misogyny in business. Change all the occurrences of "tech" with "venture capital" in the article and I'd have no problem with it.
- PhasmaFelis 12y ago
  VCs are, to a significant extent, the gatekeepers who decide who gets a chance to succeed in tech. Their policies may not dictate tech policies in general, but they certainly have a real influence on them.
Zikes 12y ago
Great article, and a refreshing take on the issue. I think Weinblatt's view on the topic is spot-on. There shouldn't be women-specific investors any more than there should be men-specific investors. Homogeneity is the right solution, and hopefully we'll get there soon.
dang 12y ago
This post was (at one point) killed by user flags.
- zorpner 12y ago
  And it's currently on page 11 of HN, killed just as thoroughly as if you'd left it dead.
  - dang 12y ago
    > killed just as thoroughly as if you'd left it dead. That's not true. A significant difference, after we unkilled it, is that discussion could continue. User flags cause an item's rank to drop; many flags at once make it drop a lot. I know that some people feel that all user flags they disagree with should be overridden, but it isn't that simple. For one thing, those people disagree among themselves, and for another, the community itself is deeply divided.
JoeAltmaier 12y ago
There may be an elephant on the table. Some people are not as aggressive at promoting their company, their vision. These people will probably not convince a VC to part with money. There may be a disproportionate population among women. SO it would not be a gender problem, but it would look like one.
- PhasmaFelis 12y ago
  That would indeed not be a gender problem. A VC outright saying "I don't invest in women 'cause they have stupid brains" is pretty indisputably a gender problem, though.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    People fasten on to all sorts of outward affects to explain their prejudices. E.g. the VC may have noticed a correlation and erroneously deduced causation. Happens a lot.
    - PhasmaFelis 12y ago
      That's true, but open misogyny is still a "gender problem" regardless of the justification.

40 points by caio1982 12y ago

I DID NOT CHOOSE TO BE A MAN WHEN I WAS BORN. DO NOT GO SO LOW AS TO CALL ME A 'PROBLEM' BASED PURELY FROM THE OBSERVATION OF MY GENDER.

sp332 12y ago

therogerwilco: No one called you a problem. Thanks for not being part of the problem. Now can we stop ignoring the problem?

paulhauggis 12y ago

"or every story you hear about investors behaving badly," Specifically with investors, how are you going to legislate against how someone feels about investing their own money? If they don't want to invest in a woman company, it's their right. "Why do I have to go to gender-specific investors? Our company is pretty gender agnostic, at this point." Investors are very fickle with their money. The gender-specific investor might have a higher rate of investing in women founded companies. You may not like this, but it may give you a higher chance. There are also investors that are biased against the type of company you have. Some refuse to invest in social networking companies. "When you’re a single mother, says Sheri Atwood, founder of SupportPay, it’s even tougher to be taken seriously" I don't think it's because you are a woman. An investor might think that you don't have the time and energy to spend 100% on your company, which is true if you have a child at home with nobody else but you. "They saw that my being a woman and my age was an asset" So you spend an entire article talking about how you don't want to be discriminated against because you are a woman..and then conclude that you only got an investment because you are a woman?! How about..they liked your product/company idea and you and think you will succeed?Investors talk money. They want to see an ROI. "Now, we’re in a time where someone says something horribly racist" Now we are in a time where you accidentally say something that is construed as racist, and the Twitter mob gets you fired. The Mozilla CEO even had to step down because he donated a few hundred dollars to a campaign he believed in 10 years ago. If I would have gotten someone fired at a christian owned company for donating to a pro-gay marriage fund, there would be outrage. It's outrageous to me that free speech is being eroded every day and the same people that write articles like this about discrimination support it, because it coincides with their beliefs.

sp332 12y ago
No one mentioned legislation. This is a cultural problem, not a legal problem.
justinpaulson 12y ago
> It's outrageous to me that free speech is being eroded every day and the same people that write articles like this about discrimination support it, because it coincides with their beliefs. Free speech is a right given by the government. It does not have anything to do with your employer firing you for making a racist remark. How have any of your examples expressed an erosion of freedom of speech? I see no mention of the government arresting anyone for their comments.
- streptomycin 12y ago
  Free speech is a right given by the government. That's not all it is. When you say "free speech" you mean "free speech with regards to government censorship", but many other people just mean "free speech" in general. Like, the ability to freely speak about something without being harshly punished for that speech, regardless of who does the punishing.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    Ok, but there is no civil right to that kind.
  - justinpaulson 12y ago
    If people mean "the ability to freely speak about something without being harshly punished for that speech, regardless of who does the punishing" when they say "free speech" then they have no idea what they are talking about, and they should be corrected. Such a thing does not exist, and it makes no sense. You can not expect to freely bad-mouth your employer or make remarks that go against an organization's beliefs without any repercussions from the employer or organization.
    - 12y ago

izzydata 12y ago

I find it very hard to believe that this supposed investor blatantly told her that women are inferior and then she politely said thank you and left. I'd have to see this in person to ever believe that actually happened. I'm willing to believe it is some exaggeration after she was declined and now she is upset and thinks it is because she is a women. I'll probably get downvoted, but I'm just really skeptical of this story. To be clear I have no problem with women and am a strong advocate of equality, but this just sounds fake to make a point.

foolrush 12y ago
If you stretch a little, it is possible you can see the inherent enculturation of ideology within your statement. A) Why does it sound “fake”? B) Why would you have to see this in person to believe it? C) Can you see the metanarratives you constructed in the “I'm willing to believe...” sentence?
- izzydata 12y ago
  It sounds fake because I've never experienced a professional interaction of such a condescending manner. I'd have to see it to believe it simply because it sounds so fake. I'd be willing to believe something that is far more plausible than something that isn't.
  - foolrush 12y ago
    The reasons _why_ something sounds illegitimate can be ideological. Every single woman could list off a number of things that have been said to her over the course of her life that would sound “fake” due to their horrific content, and relative to normative white male experience. “The most common thing I hear from other women is: ‘Oh the stories I’ll tell once I’m far enough along that I don’t have to worry about being shamed,’” Misogyny runs deeper than logic in much the same way other ideological constructs lead to cognitive biases.
  - PhasmaFelis 12y ago
    > It sounds fake because I've never experienced a professional interaction of such a condescending manner. You haven't experienced anti-female bigotry because you aren't female. I would venture to guess--and I could certainly be wrong--that you've also never experienced anti-black or anti-gay bigotry because you aren't either of those things, either. There's nothing wrong with that, of course. But you need to realize that the fact that it doesn't happen around you doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

orclev 12y ago

It sort of annoys me how the article keeps talking about a gender problem in "tech" and yet I see no actual mention of anyone technical in the entire article (other than at least some of the people pitching). The article should have been called the gender problem in venture capital. A angel investor or a VC is not someone in tech, they're first and foremost all about business, just because what your pitching is technical doesn't automatically transform the situation into a technical one, it's still business. My guess is it's a lot harder to pitch a story about business people discriminating against women (classic glass ceiling story), than it is the current fad of lambasting the tech sector as being misogynistic. Edit: This may have come off as more critical of the article than I intended. The article is good and does have a point, it just annoys me that it makes it sound like tech is to blame when this is really just a facet of the existing misogyny in business. Change all the occurrences of "tech" with "venture capital" in the article and I'd have no problem with it.

PhasmaFelis 12y ago
VCs are, to a significant extent, the gatekeepers who decide who gets a chance to succeed in tech. Their policies may not dictate tech policies in general, but they certainly have a real influence on them.

Zikes 12y ago

Great article, and a refreshing take on the issue. I think Weinblatt's view on the topic is spot-on. There shouldn't be women-specific investors any more than there should be men-specific investors. Homogeneity is the right solution, and hopefully we'll get there soon.

dang 12y ago

This post was (at one point) killed by user flags.

zorpner 12y ago
And it's currently on page 11 of HN, killed just as thoroughly as if you'd left it dead.
- dang 12y ago
  > killed just as thoroughly as if you'd left it dead. That's not true. A significant difference, after we unkilled it, is that discussion could continue. User flags cause an item's rank to drop; many flags at once make it drop a lot. I know that some people feel that all user flags they disagree with should be overridden, but it isn't that simple. For one thing, those people disagree among themselves, and for another, the community itself is deeply divided.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago

There may be an elephant on the table. Some people are not as aggressive at promoting their company, their vision. These people will probably not convince a VC to part with money. There may be a disproportionate population among women. SO it would not be a gender problem, but it would look like one.

PhasmaFelis 12y ago
That would indeed not be a gender problem. A VC outright saying "I don't invest in women 'cause they have stupid brains" is pretty indisputably a gender problem, though.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  People fasten on to all sorts of outward affects to explain their prejudices. E.g. the VC may have noticed a correlation and erroneously deduced causation. Happens a lot.
  - PhasmaFelis 12y ago
    That's true, but open misogyny is still a "gender problem" regardless of the justification.