The differences in callback rates were not statistically different between the women and the lower class men. The only statistically significant different was higher class men and everyone else.
I didn't do the stats on it, but just looking at the graph in the article 5 times as many lower class women received callbacks than lower class men. What was the p-value on that?
Instead of "5 times as many" look as "a difference of 4 samples" - in an environment where the expected sampling noise is something like +/- 4.
"Statistically insignificant" means just that - this data is not sufficient to conclusively say if lower class women receive less callbacks than lower class men; maybe they do, maybe they don't.
Just so you know, sometimes when women leave for "family reasons", it is because they are sick of putting up with the bullshit of discrimination while trying to balance a career with raising a family. This problem is more of a self fulfilling prophecy than chicken-and-egg.
> Just so you know, sometimes when women leave for "family reasons", it is because they are sick of putting up with the bullshit
No discrimination necessary. Every job has bullshit for everyone. An engineer friend got a new boss she doesnt like and her project manager job is stressful, and not what she likes (engineering), but the only way up the career ladder. She now thinks about getting kids as a way out.
I definitely think it's more socially acceptable. It's just another annoying gender stereotype.
But to me the problem is companies working employees too long. Salary before meant putting in your 9-5 and leaving early on Fridays. Now if I don't put in 12 hours a day I look bad. If I do I look average.
Life often gives you a series of small choices that amount to preferring your career or your family. Different people choose differently and it adds up over time.
This choice is not gender neutral, we can see clear differences - and this shows up in all kinds of places, choice of profession being one of them; taking time off for family - another.
I have no personal knowledge of Dan Grossman, but in my experience, techie guys might over report indications of sexual activity and prowess on the internet ;-)
I originally thought this post was going to be about coming home to loved ones after YC and gaining some perspective on work as only part of the game of life, and how even winning can leave you lonely. But maybe that is implied by telling people that writing blog posts that lots of people click an up arrow on is not the same as growing your company (or having someone to love you).
Having loved ones outside of work and understanding where work fits into your life overall is a whole different thing. Super important think about and understand, but out of the scope of what I was trying to say in this post.
It is related for two reasons: 1) Doing work that is not work is a sneaky way to edge out loved ones outside of work because time is finite and 2) Many people have now commented that something about work-life balance is what they expected from the title, but judgement about work is one of the ways you create work-life balance.
Thanks for the article. The most helpful part for me was the way you binned actions and then acknowledged that some can be tricky to quantify right away, because relationships are important, but sometimes it is hard to tell which ones. Networking for ego is not work, but team building is. I would summarize it as: if it doesn't go in your investor updates now or support something that would be in them in the future, it might not be work.
The author is just asking his friends to do what he is doing to provide the social context he is lacking. He is right that naming it attractively is motivating. But an attractive name is usually not enough to an engineer to make up for not getting to touch the gears of how the world actually works.
I agree that (early) science is friendlier to women than (early) engineering. Another factor might be that, if all else is equal, pick the major that already has some women, so you have some peers.
I find it more useful to see "mean" as a power dynamic than an emotion or character trait. If someone asks you to do something and you have a choice, it is not likely to seem mean. If someone asks you to do the same thing and you feel like you do not have a choice (because you work for them, or other reasons) it is much more likely to seem mean, especially if you don't think they are fit for the role of deciding things for you. If a parent holds down a screaming child during a shot, they are loving, but if a stranger does, it can be perceived as mean. If people perceive you as being mean, it likely means that you are invoking traditional power structures more often than other people perceive you should. Successful founders probably do better on both fronts: 1) not making people do stuff because they are the boss but getting them to internalize the underlying framework and pick the right answer themselves and 2) they probably have an easier time being perceived as a boss than average, so when they do force an issue, followers don't mind acquiescing. Given all that, this essay says people who are good at accumulating power organically do well in start ups. Successful minorities probably have to be super good at (1) because they likely take a hit on (2).
You have correctly identified tradeoffs. All of life has them, but having a family brings many of them into focus. Each person has to decide what works for them and their family. I'm glad that people are starting to talk about this plainly and openly.
