He misses her point. It wasn't that women shouldn't be involved in startups, it was that women are quite capable of figuring out what makes them happy and harping on them to be founders isn't helping anyone.
Women have complete freedom in the modern workplace and the fact that some of them choose to stay home is not an indicator that they are broken. Why is it so offensive that many women have figured out what they enjoy and, more often then men, it's downshifting their careers around 30 so that they can focus on their families.
I am the husband of a woman that has decided to put her career on hold in order to stay home and focus on her children for a few years. And I'm quite certain my wife knows a hell of a lot more about what makes her happy than some kid at github.
I can understand why your sensitive about this considering your wife has chosen her path, but I don't think the author was directing it at her or other women saying they made the wrong decision.
He was making a simple point that the startup world can be uninviting towards women and instead it should be more inviting towards everyone, women included.
One point he discusses is clarifying the misconception that all startups look the same. That's a worthwhile point not just for women, but for a lot of men too.
I honestly can't see what is so upsetting or controversial about his statements.
By the way, I actually disagree with the author, I don't think startups are or should be for everyone. I am just making the point that his statements are not an attack on anyone's decision and his arguments seem pretty reasonable (even though I don't agree 100%).
while i don't disagree with holman's statements, i do think he misses the point. for me, trunk's article was about how the statement 'women should work at startups' is patronizing because it implies that they are less capable of making that decision for themselves than men.
advocating for a more equal distribution of startup awareness and technical training across demographics is a separate issue and i think holman and some of the commenters are confusing trunk's message as a denial of that. this is why her analogy of saying men should stay home and raise children is so apt. if they wanted to, they would. they don't need anyone's help or special attention to make sure they know all the opportunities for them in the stay-at-home-dad scene so that we have an equal number of men and women at home raising kids. maybe to some degree it's ok that different parts of society are skewed towards one gender or another since men and women are different.
we don't need to go around forcing our utopian vision of equality on systems as long as everyone has the opportunity to make the choice for themselves. whether or not women have that opportunity is a separate question. i think a lot of women do and it can be a slight to suggest otherwise based solely on their gender.
this is why her analogy of saying men should stay home and raise children is so apt. if they wanted to, they would
I'm trying to figure out if you're way more privileged than me (unlikely) or way more capable (possible!) but none of it really adds up. I'm wondering what world you live in where you think that people can just do whatever they want to, without resistance. "If women wanted to start companies, they would!" "If men wanted to stay home and raise kids, they would!"
I mean, I can get behind statements like "If someone really wants something bad enough... if it burns in their heart and their soul bears down on it like a million years of rock on a diamond, then they can achieve it."
That I believe.
But this idea that everyone is just doing exactly what they want to be doing, and that there aren't structural impediments that are unequally distributed across demographics... I mean, really?
From what I've read, a woman staying at home and raising a family was at it's peak in the 1950s (please correct me if I'm wrong). Apparently in the 1920s, a lot more women were in the workforce, then it decreased, then increased during WW2, then decreased, then increased ever since the 1960-70s.
Since the 1960-70s, staying home and raising a family has been looked upon as the "lesser" option for women. If you weren't busting your ass in the corporate world, you were wasting your life and your talents.
I read an article that said 50% of HBS graduates who are women eventually quit the corporate world and stay home to raise kids (for at least a period of time).
Are we seeing a shift where focusing on raising a family is suddenly viewed as being more valuable? I hope so, because I personally feel (whether man or woman), that focusing your efforts on creating a great environment to raise kids is far more valuable (and has a bigger impact) than most professions.
Apparently in the 1920s, a lot more women were in the workforce
Yes, but there was a qualitative difference there: The women who were employed in the first half of the 20th century were mostly young, uneducated, and single. There was no work/family conflict in general: Women (or at least, "good" women) didn't have children until they were married, and husbands (or at least "good" husbands) provided enough income that a wife no longer needed to work.
The employed woman of the 2010s -- usually well educated, often married, often having or intending to have children regardless of marital status -- is very different from the employed woman of the 1920s.
Not sure that is true, though. How many people are even aware of the option of doing a startup? My impression is that the thought rarely ever occurs to most people, and it is not being encouraged at school or anywhere either. That goes for men and women alike.
Comments
He misses her point. It wasn't that women shouldn't be involved in startups, it was that women are quite capable of figuring out what makes them happy and harping on them to be founders isn't helping anyone.
Women have complete freedom in the modern workplace and the fact that some of them choose to stay home is not an indicator that they are broken. Why is it so offensive that many women have figured out what they enjoy and, more often then men, it's downshifting their careers around 30 so that they can focus on their families.
I am the husband of a woman that has decided to put her career on hold in order to stay home and focus on her children for a few years. And I'm quite certain my wife knows a hell of a lot more about what makes her happy than some kid at github.
I can understand why your sensitive about this considering your wife has chosen her path, but I don't think the author was directing it at her or other women saying they made the wrong decision.
He was making a simple point that the startup world can be uninviting towards women and instead it should be more inviting towards everyone, women included.
One point he discusses is clarifying the misconception that all startups look the same. That's a worthwhile point not just for women, but for a lot of men too.
I honestly can't see what is so upsetting or controversial about his statements.
By the way, I actually disagree with the author, I don't think startups are or should be for everyone. I am just making the point that his statements are not an attack on anyone's decision and his arguments seem pretty reasonable (even though I don't agree 100%).
while i don't disagree with holman's statements, i do think he misses the point. for me, trunk's article was about how the statement 'women should work at startups' is patronizing because it implies that they are less capable of making that decision for themselves than men.
advocating for a more equal distribution of startup awareness and technical training across demographics is a separate issue and i think holman and some of the commenters are confusing trunk's message as a denial of that. this is why her analogy of saying men should stay home and raise children is so apt. if they wanted to, they would. they don't need anyone's help or special attention to make sure they know all the opportunities for them in the stay-at-home-dad scene so that we have an equal number of men and women at home raising kids. maybe to some degree it's ok that different parts of society are skewed towards one gender or another since men and women are different.
we don't need to go around forcing our utopian vision of equality on systems as long as everyone has the opportunity to make the choice for themselves. whether or not women have that opportunity is a separate question. i think a lot of women do and it can be a slight to suggest otherwise based solely on their gender.
this is why her analogy of saying men should stay home and raise children is so apt. if they wanted to, they would
I'm trying to figure out if you're way more privileged than me (unlikely) or way more capable (possible!) but none of it really adds up. I'm wondering what world you live in where you think that people can just do whatever they want to, without resistance. "If women wanted to start companies, they would!" "If men wanted to stay home and raise kids, they would!"
I mean, I can get behind statements like "If someone really wants something bad enough... if it burns in their heart and their soul bears down on it like a million years of rock on a diamond, then they can achieve it."
That I believe.
But this idea that everyone is just doing exactly what they want to be doing, and that there aren't structural impediments that are unequally distributed across demographics... I mean, really?
I mean, read this article and tell me that the only thing stopping, say, American men from staying home and raising kids is that "they don't want to": http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/world/europe/10iht-sweden....
> Women have complete freedom in the modern workplace
Let's stop right there. That's just not true.
http://www.mspb.gov/netsearch/viewdocs.aspx?docnumber=606214...
What's wrong with "the world" and what's wrong with working for "the government" are two different things.
No, they don't have complete freedom. Women are often punished for being aggressive in the workplace. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07...
People are less likely to want to work with a woman who tries to negotiate a raise, for example.
It's great that your wife is happy, but please don't say that women have "complete freedom."
Hmmm.... are we in the midst of a paradigm shift?
From what I've read, a woman staying at home and raising a family was at it's peak in the 1950s (please correct me if I'm wrong). Apparently in the 1920s, a lot more women were in the workforce, then it decreased, then increased during WW2, then decreased, then increased ever since the 1960-70s.
Since the 1960-70s, staying home and raising a family has been looked upon as the "lesser" option for women. If you weren't busting your ass in the corporate world, you were wasting your life and your talents.
I read an article that said 50% of HBS graduates who are women eventually quit the corporate world and stay home to raise kids (for at least a period of time).
Are we seeing a shift where focusing on raising a family is suddenly viewed as being more valuable? I hope so, because I personally feel (whether man or woman), that focusing your efforts on creating a great environment to raise kids is far more valuable (and has a bigger impact) than most professions.
Apparently in the 1920s, a lot more women were in the workforce
Yes, but there was a qualitative difference there: The women who were employed in the first half of the 20th century were mostly young, uneducated, and single. There was no work/family conflict in general: Women (or at least, "good" women) didn't have children until they were married, and husbands (or at least "good" husbands) provided enough income that a wife no longer needed to work.
The employed woman of the 2010s -- usually well educated, often married, often having or intending to have children regardless of marital status -- is very different from the employed woman of the 1920s.
Not sure that is true, though. How many people are even aware of the option of doing a startup? My impression is that the thought rarely ever occurs to most people, and it is not being encouraged at school or anywhere either. That goes for men and women alike.