I think it's mildly offensive to both sexes to present the lack of female founders in this way. To women is says; all you lack are role models and community support. Which has a 1950s, "even a woman can do it!" Ring to it.
To men, it reinforces the idea that women are being kept down by men. Maybe that's true and I'm simply not getting invited to the meetings where men gather to conspire to keep women down and out of the board room. Or maybe that doesn't happen and the real reason there are fewer women in the very high positions is a result of something else.
There is a vocal minority of dick heads out there who hate women and happen to be in tech. My guess is that they hate women for the very reason you would expect a "geek/nerd" to hate women; because girls ignored them, and were probably mean to them. The power balance in school between boys and girls goes a long way to explaining the animosity between some men and women in my opinion.
If I were asked to organise a talk to encourage women to become founders, I would ask an expert in risk assessment to speak, because we know it to be true that women are more risk averse than men. And that is why there are more male founders AND more male prisoners. To talk about anything else is just pretending there are no real, measurable and relevant differences between men and women. And I don't see how that helps anyone.
There's a gem of truth in what you say: culture is probably the largest factor in behavior differences/outcome differences. Sometimes because one culture has different setpoints for accuracy/reliability/punctuality for instance, that would make members more/less appropriate for some occupations.
But sometimes its just that one culture currently dominates a social/economic niche for historical reasons. Then members of other cultures have a hard time 'fitting in'; they can't catch a break because they don't know anybody in the industry and may even seem strange/uncomfortable for those in power, so get excluded or overlooked as new members.
Your Hollywood example may fit in that camp I believe. Maybe Jewish culture is a superior fit; maybe historically folks from that crowd entered the industry in its infancy and the rest is cultural momentum. For better or for worse.
The lesson for Silicon Valley and its bro-culture is then clearer. Why no women? Because in the 50's, there were few women. And if there is a 'women's culture', its dissimilar enough from the bro-culture that they feel mutually uncomfortable working together.
The gist of it being that in the former males are much more competitive, and in the latter, females are. While there are of course real physiological differences between men and women, don't discount out of hand the effect culture has as well.
There don't need to be "meetings where men gather to conspire to keep women down" for a society to have a significant biasing effect.
> My guess is that they hate women for the very reason you would expect a "geek/nerd" to hate women; because girls ignored them, and were probably mean to them.
And if we keep flaunting stereotypes of men in tech as bitter losers and outcasts, maybe we'll be lucky and they will start resenting everyone.
I say a vocal minority. I do not think these people are representative of the larger community. And I do point out that it's "my guess" so I don't see a problem with that comment. Or is speculation forbidden?
To men, it reinforces the idea that women are being kept down by men. Maybe that's true and I'm simply not getting invited to the meetings where men gather to conspire to keep women down and out of the board room. Or maybe that doesn't happen and the real reason there are fewer women in the very high positions is a result of something else.
There is a vocal minority of dick heads out there who hate women and happen to be in tech. My guess is that they hate women for the very reason you would expect a "geek/nerd" to hate women; because girls ignored them, and were probably mean to them. The power balance in school between boys and girls goes a long way to explaining the animosity between some men and women in my opinion.
If I were asked to organise a talk to encourage women to become founders, I would ask an expert in risk assessment to speak, because we know it to be true that women are more risk averse than men. And that is why there are more male founders AND more male prisoners. To talk about anything else is just pretending there are no real, measurable and relevant differences between men and women. And I don't see how that helps anyone.