5 ms·

The irony is that Kleiner is one of the progressive firms. Sequoia doesn't even have female general partners.

colmvp 12y ago
They have an Asian partner in Alfred Lin and Middle Eastern partner in Omar Hamoui. Both are racial minorities. That has to count for something in the realm of diversity as racial and ethnic minorities face discrimination and under-representation in many executive committees.
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  Neither of those are cultures noted for their sensitivity to women.
ripb 12y ago
Fuck this site
- jmduke 12y ago
  It's somewhat alarming that this comment wouldn't be out of place fifty years ago.
  - ripb 12y ago
    Fuck this site
    - enraged_camel 12y ago
      Not every point deserves a response, especially not those that refer to women as "vaginas."
- colmvp 12y ago
  Agreed. It's strange. It doesn't take into account merit of the selections nor the additional way of measuring progressiveness in racial diversity which, as I outline in another post, it has at least some. It's just blindly assumes the worst based on one metric.
- cbsmith 12y ago
  > Why is the number of vaginas in a room the measure of how progressive a firm is? It isn't. However, when the count is 0, it is a pretty good indication of a _lack_ of progressiveness.
  - ObviousScience 12y ago
    That depends incredibly heavily on circumstances. I've yet to see the research which indicates that we should see an even mix of men and women at the top of social structures when we already admit a difference in terms of both physical ability (eg, why we separate sports) and behaviors (eg, men tend to be more risk taking). For that matter, many distributions that we see which have no obvious component have different distributions between the two genders. For example, women often average a bit higher, but have fewer outliers (in both directions) when scored on intelligence. I don't believe that there is no gender based component to behaviors (ie, that there isn't a gender based distinction in the distribution of normal behaviors for the two genders), and even a very slight distinction would become significant after rounds of selecting the outlier candidate over and over for promotion. In much the same way that we see a dominance of men in athletic events, we might be seeing that in corporate leadership positions.
    - discodave 12y ago
      > I've yet to see the research which indicates that we should see an even mix of men and women at the top of social structures The reason that we want to see this is that we have thousands of years of evidence that when group A has more power than group B it tends to end really badly for group B. See: slavery, capitalism, the patriarchy, colonialism... etc. > admit a difference in terms of both physical ability (eg, why we separate sports) That's spurious. Physical ability is not at all important for competency in most of the high paying and powerful roles of society. If physical ability were important then the CEOs, bankers and politicians of the world would be young men rather than old white men. > and behaviors (eg, men tend to be more risk taking) It's very hard to prove that different behaviours between the genders are a result of biochemistry (that we can't control) as opposed to social conditioning (that we can control). Most of the behaviours that people think of as "feminine" or "masculine" are learned rather than innate. One example (competitiveness) is outlined in this Freakonomics podcast: http://freakonomics.com/2013/10/09/what-can-a-ball-and-a-bucket-teach-us-about-why-women-earn-less-than-men/ http://freakonomics.com/2013/10/09/what-can-a-ball-and-a-buc...

They have an Asian partner in Alfred Lin and Middle Eastern partner in Omar Hamoui. Both are racial minorities. That has to count for something in the realm of diversity as racial and ethnic minorities face discrimination and under-representation in many executive committees.

dredmorbius 12y ago
Neither of those are cultures noted for their sensitivity to women.

ripb 12y ago

Fuck this site

jmduke 12y ago
It's somewhat alarming that this comment wouldn't be out of place fifty years ago.
- ripb 12y ago
  Fuck this site
  - enraged_camel 12y ago
    Not every point deserves a response, especially not those that refer to women as "vaginas."
colmvp 12y ago
Agreed. It's strange. It doesn't take into account merit of the selections nor the additional way of measuring progressiveness in racial diversity which, as I outline in another post, it has at least some. It's just blindly assumes the worst based on one metric.
cbsmith 12y ago
> Why is the number of vaginas in a room the measure of how progressive a firm is? It isn't. However, when the count is 0, it is a pretty good indication of a _lack_ of progressiveness.
- ObviousScience 12y ago
  That depends incredibly heavily on circumstances. I've yet to see the research which indicates that we should see an even mix of men and women at the top of social structures when we already admit a difference in terms of both physical ability (eg, why we separate sports) and behaviors (eg, men tend to be more risk taking). For that matter, many distributions that we see which have no obvious component have different distributions between the two genders. For example, women often average a bit higher, but have fewer outliers (in both directions) when scored on intelligence. I don't believe that there is no gender based component to behaviors (ie, that there isn't a gender based distinction in the distribution of normal behaviors for the two genders), and even a very slight distinction would become significant after rounds of selecting the outlier candidate over and over for promotion. In much the same way that we see a dominance of men in athletic events, we might be seeing that in corporate leadership positions.
  - discodave 12y ago
    > I've yet to see the research which indicates that we should see an even mix of men and women at the top of social structures The reason that we want to see this is that we have thousands of years of evidence that when group A has more power than group B it tends to end really badly for group B. See: slavery, capitalism, the patriarchy, colonialism... etc. > admit a difference in terms of both physical ability (eg, why we separate sports) That's spurious. Physical ability is not at all important for competency in most of the high paying and powerful roles of society. If physical ability were important then the CEOs, bankers and politicians of the world would be young men rather than old white men. > and behaviors (eg, men tend to be more risk taking) It's very hard to prove that different behaviours between the genders are a result of biochemistry (that we can't control) as opposed to social conditioning (that we can control). Most of the behaviours that people think of as "feminine" or "masculine" are learned rather than innate. One example (competitiveness) is outlined in this Freakonomics podcast: http://freakonomics.com/2013/10/09/what-can-a-ball-and-a-bucket-teach-us-about-why-women-earn-less-than-men/ http://freakonomics.com/2013/10/09/what-can-a-ball-and-a-buc...