How to Break Out of the 'Female Entrepreneur' Trap

http://www.inc.com/shelley-prevost/break-out-of-the-female-entrepreneur-trap.html

by itsybaev • 13 years ago

51 68 13 years ago

helipad• 13 years ago

Title of article: "How to Break Out of the 'Female Entrepreneur' Trap"

First line of article: "As the lone female founder of a bustling incubator..." - or is that whooshing sound the joke going over my head?

tptacek6• 13 years ago

Shelley Prevost has never been a startup operator. Her background is in psychological counseling, and she serves that role (in what looks like a team-coach or leadership-coach kind of role) at an incubator.

That doesn't disqualify her from having opinions about how women should handle gender-based bias, team dynamic, and motivational challenges in startups. But it doesn't automatically qualify her, either.

Meanwhile, I read this piece twice and it seems like it's full of platitudes. Maybe women leading startups face problems that are not best addressed by "Find other ways to get support, then keep moving" and "not living in the sting" and "amplifying your problems".

Mz3• 13 years ago

It also commits the irony of talking about "women's issues" solely to badmouth the idea of doing just that, in essence. Count me as not a fan of the piece.

Anechoic• 13 years ago

"Find other ways to get support, then keep moving"

As longs as those "other ways" don't including attending a women's symposium, and small talk. Sigh...

chacham153• 13 years ago

"Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn't, it's not a problem."[1]

[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

tptacek6• 13 years ago

First: That is not what I asserted. What I said was subtly but importantly different: that her piece was full of platitudes and thus her prescriptions rely on her authority, which is worth examining. My point was substantive.

Second: There is no less compelling argument to make on HN than a citation to that post, particularly when the argument involves the word "ad hominem", which for some reason seems to be a particularly difficult concept for message board nerds like us to grok.

jacalata• 13 years ago

Oh look, an appeal to authority.

Mz3• 13 years ago

Thomas did no such thing. You are way out of line. I appreciated his observation because the piece in question gave me the impression "I can say this authoritatively because I am a very successful female founder." I mostly don't agree with the piece and was relieved to have it pointed out that she isn't any such thing.

dspeyer4• 13 years ago

Here's the key line from the article:

> Here's the profile of a female entrepreneur that I want to work with

Note the use of the word "I". When the author brings herself into the article like this, discussing the author is entirely relevant.

zallarak• 13 years ago

Actually, what she says makes total sense to me. I have an anecdote. After 9/11 (I look Eastern enough to face discrimination) a lot of my family and friends faced discrimination - some of them joined support groups, others campaigned, etc. I found that those that just focused on their work and vision, as opposed to the negativity, did far better than those who got sucked into amplifying their own problems. Time is so fleeting.

elptacek2• 13 years ago

At this exact moment, I disagree with you. But this may be only because I'm feeling something of a pinch in my brain parts over social media feeding frenzies that keep popping up about booth babes and gender bias and blah blah blah... Every time I read a vitriolic blog post or some -ist group rocking the boat, it feels like a setback, for me, personally.

Every thought Shelly expresses here has gone through my mind countless times, only in far less kind phrases laced with many a shocking expletive. She says, "Excuses amplify problems." I see this. I also see it making problems where none may exist. I see it as making problems for me, too, in that loudly expressed excuses put many people on guard for criticism and generally result in creating a hostile political environment. That fixes nothing and helps no one.

The approaches that men and women have to solving problems (in the most general logical scope possible) may be completely due to cultural nurture. Women talk out loud about their problems. Men internalise them. Then when we have to sort stuff out, of course we look at each other through the filter of our own bias and flatten/marginalize other players for the sake of convenient argument. This also fixes nothing.

"Work harder than anyone else," is equivalent to "rise above." As with any experiment, it's not engineering when design refactoring stops at the first hurdle. And boy howdy is "there aren't enough women in $INDUSTRY" ever a hurdle.

adsenseclient4• 13 years ago

Let me be frank: I received a 1 page resume of a female computer scientist, where the word "women" was mentioned 8 times (organizations, etc). We did not interview that person, since frankly we were scared.

rdouble2• 13 years ago

Women are scary to computer nerds.

Mz3• 13 years ago

Women scare a lot of men. That is no doubt the real subtext of imagery of armed to the teeth, chain mail bikini clad women in certain types of fiction.

But I have found it is socially unacceptable to remark on that fact.

unconed• 13 years ago

More precisely, it's the way women can wind other computer nerds around their finger. The sword of attention cuts both ways.

mediacrisis• 13 years ago

Wasn't aware the two were distinct.

dspeyer4• 13 years ago

You have completely missed the point of the comment that you are responding to. It's not that she's a woman, but that she put so much of her efforts into that identity.

Or maybe you're joking, but jokes don't go well in discussions like this.

drhayes9• 13 years ago

Scared of what?

TallGuyShort• 13 years ago

I believe they're referring to a fear of legal problems because the individual was obviously very passionate about the issue of women in tech. Not commenting on the legality of such a concern, just pointing out what they were likely concerned about.

heliostatic• 13 years ago

Sorry, scared? Can you please elaborate? Were you concerned the candidate would be spending too much time at conferences? Or too much time... being a woman? I'm honestly not clear.

adsenseclient4• 13 years ago

Scared of her being litigious (e.g. if she has performance problems and gets fired (like any other employee in our company), she would accuse us of discrimination)- stuff like that.

jeff18• 13 years ago

I am pretty sure that is actually illegal

Alex3917• 13 years ago

People who attend conferences about women aren't a protected class. So it wouldn't be illegal unless you could demonstrate that filtering out people who attend conferences about women systematically discriminated against women. This would be fairly difficult at best, and almost impossible unless it were a large organization with an obvious gender imbalance.

jordo37• 13 years ago

Why?

wizawuza• 13 years ago

I agree that more women need to quit "talking about being a female founder", but not interviewing someone based on the fact that they go to women's organizations/etc? That's wrong and very likely illegal.

danilocampos4• 13 years ago

> Let me be frank: I received a 1 page resume of a female computer scientist, where the word "women" was mentioned 8 times (organizations, etc). We did not interview that person, since frankly we were scared.

I know this is usually verboten on Hacker News, but I find no other way to encode this thought...

Boy, you guys sure sound like assholes. Sounds like she dodged a bullet.

Y'know. Frankly.

adsenseclient4• 13 years ago

I wrote "frank" because I frankly exposed the events that actually took place (receiving the resume, word counting in it, decision). What facts are you frank about? Would you like a resume where the word "men" appears 8 times? Or "whites"? Would you like to work with people who tout being white, Danilo Campos?

gamblor9562• 13 years ago

You should delete your comment immediately. You have violated long-standing and well-enforced laws against gender-based discrimination on hiring. You openly admit that you did not hire a qualified female candidate primarily because of her gender. Your comment could, and if it comes to it, would be used in litigation.

dspeyer4• 13 years ago

Any idea whether or not you were right to be scared?

hkmurakami• 13 years ago

This sounds alarmingly close to the dangerous "women can only succeed in business by acting like men" attitude that is prevalent in much of more traditional businesses and particularly in more conservative cultures around the world.

There are real biases and subconscious prejudices against female entrepreneurs, female engineers, and female professionals in many industries in general that will most likely perpetuate if ignored (which imo is what this article suggests). While ignoring the possibility of potential pitfalls might work, it definitely doesn't seem like an elixir that will cure all ills.

dspeyer4• 13 years ago

Your post seems to imply that solving problems and focusing on goals are male-specific patterns of action. That's a rather more dangerous meme.

tgrass2• 13 years ago

Ignoring reality does not make it go away.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/02/05/171196714/the-jobs...

omonra3• 13 years ago

It has been mostly debunked - and is attributed to choices people make:

Here is Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, explaining that the portion of the gender wage gap due to bias and prejudice is about 25% of the total gap. That is 75% of the gap is due to various career choices and career preferences that differ between men and women, and the remaining 25% is due to bias and prejudice. So if the wage gap is 24 cents on the dollar, the wage gap due to bias and prejudice is 6 cents. Still something to think about and work on, but a whole lot less inflammatory than 24 cents.

http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/05/01/robert-reich-answers-...

“Q: I’d be interested to know your thoughts on the feminisation of poverty and the male-female wage differential. How much of that is due to career choice?

A: Rough estimate: About 50 percent of the differential has to do with different career choices made by women and men. Twenty-five percent involves greater time women spend on care-taking of children and elderly relatives. The other 25 percent is due to bias and prejudice in the labor market.”

(citation - this comment: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2012/12/17/profit-opportu...)

tgrass2• 13 years ago

Your second citation only cites your first, which is not a debunking but a comment in an interview - which says 75% of the gap is due to career choice - but the link I provided shows gaps by career, making that distinction moot.

AlexandrB2• 13 years ago

> Here is Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, explaining that the portion of the gender wage gap due to bias and prejudice is about 25% of the total gap. That is 75% of the gap is due to various career choices and career preferences that differ between men and women, and the remaining 25% is due to bias and prejudice. So if the wage gap is 24 cents on the dollar, the wage gap due to bias and prejudice is 6 cents. Still something to think about and work on, but a whole lot less inflammatory than 24 cents.

This analysis is incomplete and doesn't really debunk anything.

First of all, career choices and preferences don't exist in a vacuum. They are partially the result of familial and cultural influence. Women are expected to behave a certain way and like certain things - this undoubtedly has an influence on which career they chose. Second, the way wages are set for a particular career is not always a rational process. Certainly the market influences how much someone is paid to some extent, but cultural and historical factors play a role here too.

All this quote basically says is 25% of the wage gap is due to overt discrimination, 25% is due to child rearing, and 50% is due to unknown factors - including traditional gender roles and other more "covert" forms of discrimination as well as personal choices.

Maybe studies that cover that last 50% exist, I don't know I'm not a sociologist, but saying that you can just throw 50% of the disparity away because it's "personal choice" is completely neglecting parts of the issue.

startuup3• 13 years ago

This happens because women are raised to be terrible negotiators. http://books.google.com/books?id=k6vd7PJUFmYC&printsec=f...

Its the way we (women) are brought up in the western world. Girls are pushed to be consensus driven from a young age; whereas, boys are encouraged to participate in conflicts. Its playing house vs. playing war analogy. This translates into women avoiding and being uncomfortable in conflict situations, even salary negotiations.

But it can be changed. Awareness amongst parents is the first thing. Growing up in India, my father told me I could achieve anything I wanted. My mother took me to markets to bargain at a young age. As a result, I am not afraid of conflicts. My mantra is: If you dont ask, you will never get it.

itsybitsycoder• 13 years ago

Unfortunately it's not just that simple. Women are also societally expected to be less aggressive and not haggle, and are often punished for breaking this expectation in a way that men aren't.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07...

kategleason• 13 years ago

holla!

ahoyhere5• 13 years ago

I very much agree with the premise but she's not a very clear writer. I think she assumes the reader already knows what the problem is.

My take is that the more people focus on identity ("female" "founder" "hacker" "HNer" whatever), the less they focus on results. Everything that happens in their lives gets viewed through this lens of identity. Unfortunately, that colors things in an unrealistic way:

"This guy trolled me because I am female" vs "this guy trolled me, and he trolls a lot of other people with penises too, because he's a dick".

It leaves you ridiculously vulnerable to identity attacks:

"Top 10 Traits of Entrepreneurs" "Are you entrepreneur enough?" "Hacker News is a wasteland" "Designers Suck At X"

Identity-involvement not only reduces your ability to see reality (you look for the first fit explanation to any occurrence, and identity is always with you), it also means you are really easy to troll and manipulate. Either by insulting or questioning YOUR identity, or massaging it and propping it up ("I have the traits of an entrepreneur! Yay!") ("Hackers will inherit the earth"), or attacking your lack of support for their identities ("Why doesn't your conference have 50% women?").

Finally, identity-involvement leads to a narrowing of experience -- "Do female founders do this? Can they? Will I be fulfilling a stereotype? Will I be letting people down?" "I'm a designer… designers don't x" "I'm a hacker, and hackers care about the hottest technologies…"

It becomes about grooming, enforcing, and defending an image, rather than results.

I see this a lot. It's a shame. I used to fall prey to it myself, wishing I wasn't a woman because of people thought "woman" meant -- something I had no interest in (hair, makeup, purses, women's magazines, women's meetups etc) -- and those other women "made me look bad".

But then I realized what an ego trip that was. "Woman," too, is just a label, and by denying it, I was implicitly buying into its legitimacy.

Now I just do whatever the fuck "Amy" does, which is my stereotyped identity sample size 1.

A friend of mine was concerned that her girly clothes and love of makeup make her less credible as a spokesperson for women's issues. One of these seems like a concern about sexism… but both hers and my worries are actually about the same issue (identity). Like me, my friend also has learned to simply embrace who she is and not worry that she's "letting other women down" by simply doing what she loves.

It sounds to me that this is what the author is getting at, she just doesn't lay it out that clearly. That's why she says things about women's symposiums, talking about femaleness, etc., stressing about / regretting (instead of using) the fact that you're the sole female in a thing[1], because those are identity involvements. These points of hers, I agree with.

To those who will say that she is saying "act like a man" -- she doesn't.

To those who will say "this is glossing over very real sexism" -- please see my example above about the troll. Often people assume that if something is (OR APPEARS to be) sexually related, it's sexism. They look at the first possible answer ("she's being trolled… she's a woman… it must be because she's a woman!"). But 9 times out of 10, the guy who insults a speaker for being a woman, insults another speaker for using JavaScript or being fat or wearing a suit, or looking like a hipster. That's not sexism, that's an equal opportunity dick, who simply seizes on the most vulnerable part of his victim's identity. Yes, identity.

Is there real sexism? Absolutely. But is there any proof that women's conferences and angry blog posts help?

Sure, it's annoying for some dude at a meetup to assume you're there with somebody else. It's also annoying for some woman on Twitter to loop me into "sexist technology" rants because I have breasts and therefore she expects I agree with her. But that's just life. You can't control what people think, not even of you. And the annoying people in both examples are just pattern matching, which usually works, and not making a value judgment about your person (aka sexism).

[1] (Aside: stressing about being "the only x" in an environment is often even more about identity-confirmation -- I need other people Who Look/Think/Act Like Me to validate my choices are okay -- as it is about exclusion. This is the same reason some people love being "the only x" -- it confirms their identity as a renegade. Also, "the only x" is often not about physical facts (sex) but also about viewpoints.)

tptacek6• 13 years ago

I think the angry blog posts help. I think most of HN is not aware of how pervasive sexism and gender privilege assumptions are in Startuplandia. We're commenting on Hacker News, a site run by someone who's most famous essay says outright that he wouldn't want to work at an early-stage startup with a woman with small children. In other words, I think even the people pushing gender privilege aren't fully aware that they're doing it. The angry posts keep the conversation alive, and that's the only way the culture is going to change.

Women's conferences, no idea. I think the idea sounds silly, but then, I'm a guy.

My wife, also a developer, also a startup person, is probably more on your side than on my side. Ironically, we started out with the opposite conflict: I didn't buy that male privilege was a real issue, and trusted on meritocracy to sort all this shit out. Now that's become her spiel, and mine the opposite.

(Look, here's her disagreeing with me on this very thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5287829)

ahoyhere5• 13 years ago

What we think and what there's evidence for are diff things. Obviously everybody's entitled to their opinions.

There is research that suggests, however…

* priming people to remind them that they belong to a stereotyped group actually causes people to perform worse (stereotypically) -- this is called stereotype threat, lots available if you googles

* guilting people about their culture's bad behavior / their personal bad behavior actually causes them to dig in their heels, not to feel bad and then change (because feeling bad is an identity threat (irony)) -- the study I'm thinking of for this one took young Germans and primed them to think about the abuses perpetrated by nazis (before they were ever born) and then polled them on attitudes towards Jews and found that the people who were exposed to the priming were less sympathetic, not more; the researchers had reason to believe this was due to the emotional knee-jerk reaction to guilt

And on and on. The research suggests that the furor is probably paradoxically counter-productive.

Furthermore, people who speak about "women in x" presume to speak for everyone, but they sure don't speak for me or most of my female friends. But they are painting us with the same brush because we've got the same genitals. Bothersome.

As for pg's opinions about startup-women-with-young-kids, it fits well with his other writing (programmers aren't just programmers, they're hackers; hackers are artists; nerds are unpopular in high school because they're way too awesome, etc) which is all about reinforcing identity. And of course he runs a business which depends on extraordinary (I would say over-)involvement with, and (over-)commitment to work. He also says he won't work with people who won't or can't move, too -- a non-gendered but identical outcome based on "devotion," not body parts or reproductive status.

elptacek2• 13 years ago

Angry blog posts keep the conversation alive to a degree. Then they troll, polarize and reinforce stereotypes. Sadly, thoughtful blog posts don't get nearly as much attention. That is the distinction I'd like to make: creating a hostile political environment only fuels more hostility.

The only women's conference I've ever wanted to go to is RollerCon, anyway.

startuup3• 13 years ago

Being a woman entrepreneur, and having been part of an incubator for startups (ImagineK12), I have to agree with what she is saying in this article. Even though we were the ONLY women founder team in an incubator with more then 30 men, I never saw myself as different from my male co-founder peers.

Its important to focus on results. Driving product, customers, team, company requires similar skills whether you are a woman, man, white, black, gay, straight. Using your contraint as an excuse will not let you see your full potential.

I personally dont have anything against women organizations, but I try to not partake in them often because I dont feel the need to. I am happy to help other women succeed, but I am happy to help other men succeed too. If you stop looking at the world as 'us against them', there is a whole lot of new opportunity you will open up for yourself.

How to Break Out of the 'Female Entrepreneur' Trap

Related Stories