My partner Rebecca posted this to her Twitter yesterday:

FemaleFounder.org is a group of women VC investors who are doing regular “office hours” to advise and mentor female founders.

As they say “A community of women helping women”

I know most of the women who are doing this and they are all great people, investors, and advisors.

If you are a woman getting started on your startup journey, check out FemaleFounder.org.

It’s a great initiative.

#entrepreneurship#VC & Technology

Comments (Archived):

  1. pointsnfigures

    This is great. In Chicago we have a slew of female founders. We invested in one at Megalytics.net (our first investment). Ms. Tech (https://ms-tech.co/about-us/) is a support network in Chicago for female founders.

  2. Twain Twain

    I posted about female founders.org on my LinkedIn feed yesterday and cc’d female investors and leads of Anita Borg chapters that I know in Europe. There’s a lot more cross-pollination and network strengthening that can happen and I try to facilitate that in my small ways.On the same day, there were two contrasting pictures of women in technology in the US and in China. https://uploads.disquscdn.chttps://www.theatlantic.comhttps://uploads.disquscdn.chttps://www.newyorker.com/m

  3. Twain Twain

    I also had an epiphany about an inclusion slogan for men: “BE A BABBAGE NOT A “BRO”.”On LinkedIn, I’d written this: “Gentlemen credit women our brilliance to others. The Italian engineer Luigi Menabrae, who later became Prime Minister of Italy, about Ada Lovelace: “The observations accompanying my brief paper were absolutely remarkable and revealed an author of wisdom outside the commonplace. The author’s name was unknown to me until, with great amazement, I learned from Mr Babbage that the translation and notes were the work of Lady Ada Lovelace, the daughter of Lord Byron, a lady as distinguished for her great spirit as she was noted for her beauty, who was torn away from us by death a few years ago, in the prime of her life.”Charles Babbage to Michael Faraday about Ada: “So you will now have to write another note so that Enchantress who has thrown her magical spell around the most abstract of Sciences and has grasped it with a force which few masculine intellects (in our own country at least) could have exerted over it.”We follow in the wake of great men and women.”https://www.wired.com/beyon…

    1. jason wright

      what does “humble brag” mean?

      1. Twain Twain

        If you’re talking about what I wrote on Bethany Marz Crystal’s Medium post, I mean guys who said, “Oh, I know Vitalik (Buterin). He came to stay with us and learnt everything from us.”Yeah right …In my view, there’s a lot that’s good about someone being proud of reaching personal and career milestones after they put in the hard work and EARNED IT.There’s something very wrong with guys humble bragging about achievements that aren’t even theirs (but Vitalik and his team’s); AND those guys also having double standards and not giving due credit to women for our actual achievements.Anyway, I called them out on it.

  4. Twain Twain

    Specifically as it relates to AI and the endemic bias problems that leading AI folks like John Giannandrea, SVP of Google Search; Peter Norvig, Director of Research at Google; Richard Socher, Chief Scientist of Salesforce; and Dr Suchi Saria have noted:https://www.cmo.com.au/arti…I’m unequivocal in my belief AI needs to be XY (YinYang, male+female, art+science, East+West) to overcome the bias problems.The risk for Silicon Valley is that its thinking is too rooted in this Western philosophy identified by Stephen Cave of Cambridge University: “So at the dawn of Western philosophy, we have intelligence identified with the European, educated, male human. It becomes an argument for his right to dominate women, the lower classes, uncivilised peoples and non-human animals. While Plato argued for the supremacy of reason and placed it within a rather ungainly utopia, only one generation later, Aristotle presents the rule of the thinking man as obvious and natural.”https://aeon.co/essays/on-t…Cultural frames of reference matter. The systems and teams we build are informed by cultural beliefs as much as by our Jedi coding skills, user-friendly UX and tech stacks.https://uploads.disquscdn.c

  5. PhilipSugar

    I think this is great! I would like to take some credit for the concept of office hours :-)Over a decade ago I posted about my practice of that. Some prominent bloggers liked the concept.Now we are going to have some people that say: This isn’t “fair”…This is exactly what I think is “fair”Not say we are going to set quota’s, but say let’s give a hand to some underrepresented people a way to pull themselves up, that helps us all.

  6. LE

    What’s good about this is that it involves people that are actually still doing something. Not those that are retired and possibly out to pasture [1] This was the case when I graduated college. Back then the only option for men or women was an organizations such as the ‘Service Corp of Retired Execs’. [2] [3]Today there are so many ways that a young person can get advice and help. I guess the downside of that is that it creates more competition for the truly entrepreneurial who are able to hustle and don’t need every question answered and can figure it out on their own. That is a large part of being an entrepreneur. Or at least it used to be.[1] “Out to pasture” – I guess that’s not the best phrasing that I am using to describe a generous act.[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…[3] Being young was also not seen as an advantage and something to be celebrated. Was often hard to be taken seriously.

  7. ShanaC

    Overdue. Just, overdue

  8. Kirsten Lambertsen

    Saw this in my Twitter feed at the time. Good things happening! I have no doubt that group of leaders is also looking at how they can increase the racial diversity of the mentors and mentees. Then they’ll really be ‘cooking with gas.’ :-)As a woman, I can’t help but wonder if they all got the memo to “wear neutrals” for the photo, ha!Thanks for sharing this here today.

  9. creative group

    CONTRIBUTORS:We still view the photo and the diversity that is talked about among those promoting and actively cultivating the missing link is the elephant in the room that will not be talked about in the forum or any major forum. But diversity for one group holds a different meaning in another.Continue to let the wind of creativity and progress blow your sails. (creative group)Captain Obvious!

  10. sigmaalgebra

    I’ll take this bait and respond: On this issue, I’ve been poked in the ribs, lied to, deceived, manipulated, attacked, damaged, stolen from just a few million times too many.It’s dirt simple to debunk essentially all this 99 44/100% total BS nonsense. Different I’ll start with the most obvious point, like a big, ripe, red, pimple on the tip of a nose:Boys and girls, men and women are, in a word, just one word, not to be modified, mollified, compromised, minimized, justified, qualified, constricted, constrained, evaded, avoided etc., and [drum roll, please] may I have the envelope, please. And the word isDIFFERENTOr they ain’t the same. Not even close.Right: Girls have so much talent with language that any fourth grade girl could have come up with my “mollified, compromised, minimized, justified, qualified, constricted, constrained, evaded, avoided” while it took me some additional decades. That situation was darned discouraging (more awful alliteration) to me in grades 1-8. Grade 9 math, and since, were payback time! Uh, in math I accumulated a lot of evidence that with very rare exceptions girls aren’t much good at math and are much worse at geometry! Honey, for those ring and pinion gears, and the four spider gears and the splines on the half shafts — nearly ALL US teenage boys know just what I’m talking about — I can see all those working together as a movie in my head even when half asleep. Indeed, Dad explained it to me just in words when I was about 10 when we were driving, and I saw it right away and have never forgotten it since.There is the famous Men and women deserve equal respect as persons but are not the same. E. Fromm, The Art of Loving. For more, there is, which might settle a lot of issues,Michael Gurian and Kathy Stevens, “With Boys and Girls in Mind,” Educational Leadership apparently fromNovember 2004, Volume 62, Number 3, Pages 21-26.athttp://www.ascd.org/publica…Different? Yup. Done. Tribes We can easily believe that during evolution of the past million years or so much of human mental development was driven by the case of Darwin’s favorite concept reproductive advantage, in this case, social cohesion of, in one word, again just one: TRIBES. So there were tribes.Now there are, to use a slightly less shocking word, cliques. In a three layer cookie analogy, cliques are soft on the inside and hard on the outside.Nearly everyone in a clique is nicer to people inside the clique than outside the clique.The inside can be so soft it all sticks together. Since some pairs of cliques overlap, the set of all cliques does not really partition the set of all humans, but in practice for what is most important there is nearly a partition as no doubt there was for essentially all tribes. Shock In the US, by far the largest clique is the set of straight WASP males, that is, heterosexual, white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant males. Call that the SWASPM clique.Okay, Virgina, calm down, shut up, sit down, listen up, and learn something, shocking, important, and wildly politically INcorrect:While each clique is hard on the outside and soft on the inside, by a wide margin the SWASPM clique is (A) relatively hard on the inside and (B) by far the softest on the outside.In particular, of all cliques, the SWASPM clique is by far the nicest to people outside their clique.Indeed, by a wide margin, the clique trying hardest to destroy cliques is the SWASPM clique.In nearly any other clique, an outsider will be less welcome than a skunk at a Victorian garden party and may get away with only their tires being slashed.In an organization run by a clique X other than the SWASPM clique, an outsider stands to be treated unfairly in hiring, work assignments, salary, bonuses, and promotions and soon fired. This is especially true for people in the SWASPM clique trying to work in an organization led by clique X.So, we have: (A) The SWASPM clique is the hardest on the inside, (B) softest on the outside, (C) treated the worst in other cliques.Net, as a member, inactive, in the SWASPM clique, I’m not pissed off. I’ve been pissed off. Now I am way past just pissed off at other cliques dumping on the SWASPM clique and ME.And for me, I’m nice to kittens and puppies, commonly race to open doors for all females, regard a lot of females as angels to be cared about, cared for, taken care of, protected, kept happy and smiling (keep looking if Melania has been smiling or not) and am still in love with one female that when I was 15 I regarded as God’s most wonderful angel. I’ve been nice to human females; except for just one case, they have never been anywhere near as nice to me.Here is a comparison: Without looking too hard, we can find a clique of women in business working hard to give special support, funding consideration, information, etc. just to other women. And, that situation is celebrated as overdue, progress, being really nice by, sure, also members of the SWASPM clique.But, that said, suppose I or any SWASPM decided to start a group to give special support, funding consideration, information, etc. just to other SWASPMs?Good grief: That would be rubbing alcohol on a bleeding sore spot of political correctness and an outrage at the top of the newsies’ news for weeks at least.My personal track record is clear and rock solid: I worked hard to help a female succeed. We’re talking big time time, money, and effort. Net, she didn’t succeed.I still like and respect females: IMHO, Laura Ingraham is a bit naive and superficial at times but is the brightest person in the US news. Rush is a close second; I don’t really agree with him, but he has nicely focused insights.The rest of the Fox Babes are drop dead gorgeous, but they are plenty well qualified.Any of the men on Fox should calm down, shut up, sit down, listen up, pay attention to News 101 from the Fox Babes and learn some good things.As far as I can tell, by a wide margin the brightest person in world news and politics is Trump.I still like women: E.g., athttps://www.youtube.com/wat…is a total sweetheart fantasy of, say, 7th grade dancing class to a very nice Vienna performance of the J. StraussAn der schönen blauen Donauand a ballet by four apparently young teen women. Gorgeous, fantastic dancing, grace, athleticism.Then athttps://www.youtube.com/wat…is another ballet, this time with a very nice Vienna performance of the J. Strauss Morgenblätter Watch more than once and conclude that the women are athletes beyond belief. In just athleticism, Olympic, NBA, NFL men are left behind.Look closely and see that it’s been a long time since those women were teenagers. And they are better athletes — and dancers and artists — than the young teen women in theAn der schönen blauen DonauThe young women are cuter but still don’t quite win.And, of course, as in essentially all cases of ballet, the men look no more impressive than old, wooden fence posts; that’s basically all they are there for; they are different, not at all like the women.And, the athleticism is only the small part: The dancing, grace, and art are the main points. Strategy I don’t like to see people hurt. I naturally feel protective enough of females not to want to see them hurt.So, for some of the women suffering, I’ll give some advice:(A) Don’t expect the cliques to disappear.(B) Since the SWASPM clique is by far the softest on the outside, don’t dump on the SWASPM clique.(C) For success, follow the usual unpaved, winding road of being a founder and work smart and hard and get good stuff done.Want to make a big splash in Silicon Valley style business? Okay: The doors are wide open to you:(A) In school, learn the STEM field stuff. That stuff where you have big advantages in writing total BS humanities field term papers can, at times, help a little but is nearly always a minor thing and won’t much help.It remains the case, young females are much more interested in socializing, gossip, dieting, hair, makeup, and fashions, fictional stories, finding Mr. Right, social climbing, social manipulations, etc. than the STEM fields.It remains common that If a woman is smart, she doesn’t have to have brains.If a woman needs something practical done, she finds a man to do it. (B) Then there is this stuff that around an office a woman didn’t like some of the, call it, social small talk, that she thought that the way he looked at her made her “feel uncomfortable”, that she was sure the men were thinking of her as just a sex object.Gads: Social interactions and small talk, and the women feel they are losing out in that stuff? Good grief: Apparently from just out of the womb if not before, the females are natural grand masters at social whatever, put downs, etc. Girls and women certainly proved that to me often enough — kindergarten to the present — with their sharp social fangs and claws.So, that the women feel they are going to lose in social this and that with a bunch of nerd bros, some of whom are still working out how to shave, is like Lebron afraid he would lose a 1-1 against, let’s, see, how about Rosie O’Donnell?(C) If you believe that a man attacked you sexually, then have some solid evidence. You should bite, scratch, kick, scream, use the 150 year old standard, a 6″ hat pin, draw some blood, etc. Just a little on high school anatomy will show you the best hat pin target areas; gads, I get chills just thinking about it. Wow — that’d be, too tough for words.As I recall clearly enough, K-college, the girls and young women were really careful, for nearly all the boys, never to be alone with them. Women in the world of work forgot that lesson?Eventually, a big surprise to me, I learned that young women like double dates or group dates better than one on one dates because they feel safer and, then, are really “more courageous”. Women in Hollywood, Silicon Valley, on Wall Street, etc. actually forgot those points? I don’t believe that.One lesson I had to learn in life, and in strong conflict with the politically correct views, is that commonly the females are more interested in casual, no strings, hanky panky than the males are. Sure, some of this is because if something goes wrong the male is the one more at risk of going to jail or, in some cases, having to hand over big bucks.Back to the hat pins, and I’m not a lawyer, but apparently now there are much better means, so good that any man who clearly tries to pressure a female into doing something, anything, they should not have to do is dumb, stupid, a fool. For the female, maybe there’re big bucks here. How? The female carries a recording device. Or, if she doesn’t carry one always, then if she suspects that some man will try again after she denied him the first time, then she carries a recording device and gets the dirt bag on the recording. Besides females have a big advantage because they can carry purses, and society quite broadly accepts that what’s in a female’s purse is private to the female. Then after an incriminating recording, she gets a lawyer, and the man is in deep, hot, bubbling, fuming, yellow and black, toxic, sticky stuff — he’s in serious trouble.(D) Currently there is a huge, nearly unique in all of history, better than the early days of the spice trade, etc., opportunity: Get a computer, just a desktop for less than $1500, download a lot of software, learn to program the thing, have a good business startup idea that can be done with just a Web site, and then go for it.Do it alone or with just you and your girlfriends.That computer is the only capex and is a tiny fraction of the capex for any other business opportunity — pizza carryout, hardware store, dentist’s office, auto repair shop, auto body shop, auto tire store, Italian red sauce restaurant, grass mowing service — except just a front yard lemonade stand.With that path, all the common complaints go away: You don’t need funding or men. Once your Web site is up, the users won’t know if you are a man, woman, boy, girl, dog, cat, horse, pig, chicken, or ET.So, take it on, do it, get it done.In particular, stop dumping on the SWASPMs. That was just a simple request. But I’ll add some teeth: If my startup works, then I’ll have to hire some people. So, gotta tell you:(A) If I interview a female, I will be afraid that she is about like a one gallon bottle of nitroglycerin about to explode at any time for any reason or no reason.(B) For the interview and otherwise, I will have to arrange that no male and female are ever together alone. Call that the VP Mike Pence Rule. There will have to be some interview rooms with glass walls, wide tables, several video cameras, and lots of microphones.Final point:It appears that Darwin is still a really busy guy.Some women are, from when they were playing with dolls and for the rest of their lives, dedicated to finding a really good Mr. Right and being really good as a wife, mother, and grand mother. For herself, her husband, her children, and especially for society, she is making about the best possible contribution.Motherhood is a full-time, no, lifetime, job considering the grand children, that is plenty important, done well plenty difficult, e.g., should cover most or all ofemotional, verbal, psychological, social, creative, artistic, empathetic, moral, ethical, religious, athletic, academic, mechanical, rational, quantitative, scientific, technical, romantic, entrepreneurial, etc.development. Good motherhood is just crucial.There’s”The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.” Then there are the women encountering the huge list of problems in the world of work: Sorry, but my guess is that necessarily those women are nearly all weak, sick, or dead limbs on the tree, trying to do well living off the seed corn of civilization, and where Darwin is strongly on the case and stands to have a solid solution in just a few more generations.Or for women in the world of work, I’ll draw from an Indiana Jones movie:Marcus Brody’s “You are meddling with forces you cannot possibly comprehend.”. Or there’s another one:It’s not nice to try to fool Mother Nature. Here I’m just reporting the totally obvious; for any objections, contact Darwin.

    1. Twain Twain

      Maybe women want to plant and grow their own trees. They’re not the “weak, sick, or dead limbs on the tree” you say they are.How much healthier are ecosystems where there are more and different trees that foster other life? See Amazon rainforest as an example.:*).

      1. PhilipSugar

        Now that this thread is done, let me say this…….you use those comments to cement your resolve, not to beat you down, but to bring you up, and understand that you have to re-double your efforts and win. Win.

        1. Twain Twain

          Thanks for understanding, Phil. The inclusion war in the States is lost — as is Natural Language Understanding by the machines.The consequence of not having female product and tech leads with budget sign-off to engineer solutions with “fuller perspectives” is this: https://uploads.disquscdn.c…Those are the REAL dead branches, @sigmaalgebra:disqus — the ones that mean the machines’ can’t understand people, including you:* https://qz.com/843110/can-a…* https://www.fastcompany.com…If Stanford and Google are propagating biases in the code being shipped at-scale around the world, that’s a huge problem and it means the Valley doesn’t stand for the values it purports to.Moreover, it negates and cancels out all the small-scale initiatives like FemaleFounder.Org (@ShanaC:disqus @MsPseudolus:disqus @pointsnfigures:disqus )* https://motherboard.vice.co…* https://motherboard.vice.cohttps://www.washingtonpost….But the problems go deeper than that.It goes into 2000+ years of Western philosophy itself.I’m a Westernized Chinese person (educated in Europe, lived in N. America, love democratic values and free speech).In my explorations to make a solution so that the machines can do Natural Language Understanding and represent human-level intelligence better, I hit several of the big Western philosophers (Aristotle, Descartes, Leibniz etc) and it put into context why our modern systems and technology are the way they are.ARISTOTLE=========”Aristotle also defined a set of basic axioms from which he derived the rest of his logical system:* An object is what it is (Law of Identity)* No statement can be both true and false (Law of Non-contradiction)* Every statement is either true or false (Law of the Excluded Middle)These axioms weren’t meant to describe how people actually think (that would be the realm of psychology), but how an idealized, perfectly rational person ought to think.”* https://www.theatlantic.com…So the computer, in its very origin roots, is based on an Aristotelian logic that DOES NOT EVEN REPRESENT OR MIMIC ANYONE — no perfectly rational person exists.Only the machine is perfectly rational.Moreover, Aristotle only provides for two states: false (0) OR true (1). He doesn’t provide for WHY is it true or false, and that makes it very difficult for the machine to filter “fake news” and to support us in being able to differentiate why something is true or false.Then there is this: “At the dawn of Western philosophy, intelligence became identified with the European, educated, male human.In his book ‘The Politics’, he explains: ‘[T]hat some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule.’What marks the ruler is their possession of ‘the rational element’.Educated men have this the most, and should therefore naturally rule over women – and also those men ‘whose business is to use their body’ and who therefore ‘are by nature slaves’. Lower down the ladder still are non-human animals, who are so witless as to be ‘better off when they are ruled by man’.* https://aeon.co/essays/on-t…DESCARTES==========His scientific method means the machines have been built without he(ART). https://uploads.disquscdn.c…Descartes’ method assumes that the mind of a subject can be inferred just by external observations of their physical features and behaviors by the observer.That is a clear example of “judging a book by its covers” and it manifests itself in today’s vision recognition technology:* https://qz.com/774588/artif…* https://www.newyorker.com/n…The risk, of course, is that the machines will bias against people during the Recruitment process simply because the training data set doesn’t have any representation of them and/or because they don’t “look the same as everyone else” in the legacy data set.LEIBNIZ=======When he created the binary {0 or 1} system which later influenced Boolean logic, Leibniz was seeking to remove the human biases he saw in language during his work as a lawyer. When a Jesuit priest showed him an example of the I Ching in 1703, Leibniz fell into the confirmation bias trap and thought that the horizontal lines of its hexagrams represented 0’s and 1’s like the system he’d created in 1701.The horizontal lines of the I Ching don’t represent the {0 or 1} binary system. They represent the EXISTENCE AND UNIFICATION OF MALE + FEMALE IN ALL THINGS.So there’s been 300+ years of Leibniz’s binary (1 = male or 0 = female). Data is collected in a way that fits to Leibniz’s method: swipe left (0), swipe right (1). Words are collected into data libraries that train the AI like so: negative = 0, positive = 1. Probabilities span P(0) … P(1).Yet, after 300 years of Leibniz’s thought experiment, what’s the outcome?Systemic bias. Bias that’s causing the leading AI researchers to say that bias is the biggest threat to the development of AI:* https://www.cio.com.au/arti…If Leibniz’s logic method was to remove human biases, WHY is it that machines built on {0 or 1} have produced bias that now worries leading AI researchers?When people say, “Oh humans are biased and the AI picks up on that,” that’s not so. The truth is that the MACHINES ARE BIASED.We’re constrained to input things according to {0 or 1, %} which was supposed to remove human biases. And algorithms run on {0 or 1, %}. So the machines are as logical as can be. Yet the biases are systemic.The only conclusion we can arrive at is that Leibniz’s method didn’t remove human biases. It forced us towards the bias of Rationality at the expense of eradicating our humanness, cultural values and diversity.https://uploads.disquscdn.c…It’s lead to machines that have almost no way of understanding human language, culture and values (moral, ethical, individual, collective).So the tech inclusion problem is part of a much bigger problem of Aristotle, Descartes and Leibniz’s fooling us into their black Logic box that means the machines don’t represent and can’t understand any of us.

          1. PhilipSugar

            I will just say this: It is better to be a contrarian than to just go along or give up. Don’t give up. I think you are young. Things will change.

          2. PhilipSugar

            Don’t ever give up and don’t think that other women have not faced even greater adversity. Poverty, Racism, on top of Sexism.I was reminded of you today as we went to Delaware State an Historically Black College for Lego League today: https://www.desu.eduEach of the conference rooms was named after Female African American NASA Mathematicians that worked on “the numbers” for the Apollo Mission.My mother was a NASA Mathematician. She was the first in her family to go to college, she came from a poor farm family and had to put her way through school by waiting tables in the cafeteria. She met my Father while she was getting her Masters Degree in Math at Ohio State University in 1957. (sadly she passed away 15 years ago)As you can see from her Bio Shoshanna Loeb served as a member of my board:Dr. Shoshana Loeb, PhD. founded Elity Systems Inc., and served as its Chief Executive Officer. Dr. Loeb served as President of Elity Systems, Inc. Dr. Loeb directed Elity through particularly challenging economic times in IT to deliver both sustainable financial results and recognized as a world-class leader in its market space. She is an executive, a leader, an inventor and an entrepreneur with a proven track record in creating, operating and growing innovative technology organizations and businesses. She headed the Internet/Information Technology business unit at Bell Communications Research from 1989 to 1999. Her customers included internal product and consulting groups, and the regional phone companies including Bell South, Pacific Bell, and South Western Bell. She served as an Executive in Residence at Murex Investment in Philadelphia, PA, advising the Fund Managers and Investment Committee and Board on investment opportunities and investment models. Dr. Loeb serves as an Executive Director at Telcordia Technologies (formerly Bell Communications Research) in Piscataway, NJ in their Advanced Technology organization responsible for the development of new product lines and business opportunities for wireless and information intensive applications that address the long-tail of commerce. She serves as a Director of InternetPerils Inc. and Smart Button Associates, Inc. She served as a Member of Advisory Board at Mobiquity, Inc. She was a Professor at University at Buffalo until 1989. She has more than fifty publications. She is the author of three granted patents, two pending patents and has received numerous industry awards. She was a Post Doctoral Fellow at Yale University in New Haven, CT. Dr. Loeb holds a PhD. in Mathematics from the Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel (with honors).

      2. sigmaalgebra

        This is a mess, and we can clean it up easily here.I posted athttp://avc.com/2017/11/fema…because I’m way past the time of being pissed off at people dumping on men and SWASPMs as bad guys. We’ve been suspected of bad things, accused, tried, found guilty, and punished, all in absentia, with BS evidence, when nearly all of us have done little or nothing wrong.Three example points:First, e.g., on human (here and below) males attacking females sexually:Yup, it long happened and still does for some men under some circumstances. E.g., Sweden, England, France, and Germany have been totally brain-dead stupid, and the US nearly as stupid, letting in a lot of basically vicious, unsocialized male wild animals from countries with sick-o, hundreds of years out of date, backward cultures. Dumb de dumb dumb, dumb. Those wild animals won’t assimilate for, who knows, maybe hundreds of years and will, net, seriously hurt the magnificent — crown jewels of civilization, no joke, no exaggeration, no doubt — cultures of England, Sweden, France, and Germany and, sure, the US. Face it: The people being admitted are just, to be clear, way too commonly to take the chances, dirt bags. Keep’em out.Uh, on females, it is at least two females — May in England and Merkle in Germany — strongly supporting letting in the wild animals that anyone with a grain of common sense would know should never be within a mile of a female. Damned wild animals. We don’t have to shoot’em and waste bullets; instead, just don’t let’em in. Tough to see how a civilized country would miss that point.But for protecting the females, the old rules of civilized society should still work well: (A) A female should not be with any such male, certainly never alone with any such male, and if with such a male also with some trusted people who will protect her. (B) While I’m not a lawyer, if a male attacks, then the female should defend herself by biting, scratching, kicking, hitting, especially in sensitive areas (eyes, genitals) screaming, using pepper spray, e.g., in the face, and maybe jabbing with a knife or 6″ hat pin or even shooting a gun. She should draw blood and leave some evidence, especially bleeding wounds. E.g., there’s a recent public claim that some famous man put something sensitive — not his finger — in the woman’s mouth. Okay, against the dirt bag she should have just closed her mouth HARD and then spit out the separated bloody piece.Second, e.g., there’s a big stink that females are being held back in technology and business, are being discriminated against, that organizations need “diversity officers” to make sure females get treated fairly, etc. Of course, we’re only talking averages here since there was Madam Curie and there are some women high in math, science, medicine, technology, and business now.Well, my observations from overwhelmingly strong data are that the girls are highly interested in socializing with other girls, gossip, fashion, talking about boys, etc., are highly sensitive emotionally and socially, much more so than most men can understand, and are not much interested in math, science, technology, or business.As I outlined, males and females are different. Starting at birth, the females are interested people and the males, things. For technology, it’s important to be interested in things; so, females are at a disadvantage.In school, I concentrated on math, physical science, and engineering. There were a few females around, only a few, a tiny fraction, but they seemed to be more interested in finding Mr. Right than the academic subjects. And in the academic subjects, even when the females did well, they were good at memorization, pleasing the teachers (especially in K-12), and doing just what was asked and were, still, not much actually interested in the material, were much less likely than the males to pursue the material independently just out of interest, and were much less interested in charging out into the unknown as is mostly needed for good original research.No wonder the fraction of females high in math, science, research medicine, technology, and business is small.Huge point: The causes of that low fraction are nearly all the interests, talents, etc. of the females and not nasty or unfair behavior of the males. I’m tired of the males being beaten up as bad boys guilty of holding back the females in math, …, business. Tired of it.Third, in particular, in this thread and other sources, we are supposed to celebrate a lot of females getting together to help each other and exclude the males, all with big, public announcements. That’s deliberate, public discrimination against males.If the males got together to do the symmetrical thing, then the newsies would be screaming discrimination, “sexism,” and worse.So, let’s see how this female proposed bargain goes: For the females, what’s theirs is theirs and what’s the males’ is half the females: That is, it’s okay if the females help, fund, hire, and promote nearly only females but something really bad about the males if fewer than half of who they help, fund, hire, and promote are females. Bummer.Good males put up with this discrimination against males and unfair criticism of males because the males like the females so much, are eager to treat them well, as well as they would want a sister or daughter treated, are protective of the females, want to open doors for them, want to see the females happy and will give in at the first female tear. But anyone who believes that this situation is “equal” or even fair just found a place where a bull went number two (extra credit for the source).For taking advantage of females? BELIEVE me, as a young Ph.D. male and college prof, there are plenty of entirely too obvious opportunities. But I was married, always 100% totally faithful with my wife and turned down all the opportunities, including the woman, leaning back in her chair, looking at me, with her feet up on her desk, aimed at me, and explaining that she and her husband had an “open marriage”. Fine, sweetheart, but my wife and I don’t.Holding females back? I gave up big-time time, money, and effort to help my wife. Big-time.So, this big stuff that all the males are bad to females is heavily just another place where a bull went number two. I’m past pissed at that BS. Maybe women want to plant and grow their own trees. They’re not the “weak, sick, or dead limbs on the tree” you say they are.How much healthier are ecosystems where there are more and different trees that foster other life? See Amazon rain forest as an example.:*). Okay, I get the smile and the joke, but with the mention of the Amazon there’s some irony here: Clearly, in the Amazon, especially in the Amazon, for the RNA of the viruses, there is no metabolism and no life and the only purpose is just reproduction — Darwin’s been there. For all the DNA, the two top goals are just reproduction and food, the food necessary for the reproduction. For the rest of the DNA, there is a third consideration, safety.Yes, there are a few humans in that jungle, and maybe they are trying to make progress as a civilization, but that took a long time while the ancestors of the present Amazon humans were walking east from South Asia or Africa, traveling by boat along ocean shorelines, especially down the west coast of the Americas, and walking inland to the Amazon, and they missed out on larger social groups, agriculture, fixed settlements, possessions including tools and dwellings, domestic animals, writing, metals, etc. So, that Amazon human DNA might be fine, but they have a long way to go to get the cultural capital of a civilization. Meanwhile, their DNA is interested also mostly just in the ancient trilogy of reproduction, food, and safety.So, especially in the Amazon, the RNA/DNA is interested in what Darwin is, strong limbs on the tree. The inclusion war in the States is lost — as is Natural Language Understanding by the machines. On “inclusion”, nope.First, too many of the females have bought into a lie, one rarely made explicit by the males or anyone: The lie is that naturally and necessarily the best work is that of the males so that the coveted “equality” and “inclusion” will have the females doing just what the males are doing. That’s wrong, a lie, a mistake.Instead, for now, what is both natural and necessary, since Darwin is still a busy guy, motherhood, reproduction are super important. And being good at motherhood is crucial.Also instead, there’s an old joke: Machines should work and people should think. And people should do well in parenting. And then after the youngest gets into formal education, there is plenty of opportunity, and, really, need for the mothers also to do their share of the thinking.For Natural Language Understanding by the machines. No: Your description of machines, back to Descartes, Aristotle, etc., does not show anything at all limiting.Such machines and rationalism are just tools, and it is not clear what their limitations are or that they are the only or best tools.For limitations, there is a hammer. Well, in the hands of Michelangelo, e.g., David, Bernini, e.g., Pietà etc., some of what can be done with a hammer, chisel, and a block of marble generated some of the crown jewels of civilization. The hammer was one of the sufficient tools not too limiting.Ground color? In some of the best painting, more crown jewels. The ground color was one of the sufficient tools and not too limiting.From some spruce, maple, tree rosin, cat gut, wire, and horse hair, we got violins and, then, the Vivaldi Seasons, Vitali Chaconne, Bach Chaconne, concerti of Mozart, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Bruch, Tchaikovsky, etc., all more crown jewels. The maple, spruce, etc. were some of the sufficient tools and not too limiting.We can do real AI and natural language understanding with von Neumann architecture digital computers as soon as we basically figure out how to manipulate the data and, then, program computers to do those manipulations. There is great evidence that the computers are terrific tools, likely among the sufficient ones, no good evidence that the computers are limiting.Want to get started on real AI? Okay, start by watchinghttps://www.youtube.com/wat…showing what a mommy kitty cat does with her six or so kittens from their first day or two to the start of them walking, running, playing. Understand how that works and get some insight into the elementary parts of real AI.With some good insight, you will have a shot at knowing how to program a digital computer to do something similar. If you want to contribute to the strength of Darwin’s tree significantly but as a whole instead of just on one limb, then that might be a way.From the cat video, we have a nice insight: The current stuff in AI has at best next to nothing to do with what those kittens are doing. So, you will be very short on competition from the AI community.Yes, it can appear, and I tend to agree, that, setting aside luck — “Blind, stupid, simple, doo-dah, clueless luck!” (extra credit for the source) — for really big successes being “contrarian,” unique, only one in the world, out there on your own, etc. is nearly necessary.But being “contrarian,” etc. are way, Way, WAY too simple and not nearly even a start on being sufficient. There are a lot of total wack-os who are “contrarian”.Also not even a start on being sufficient are gut feelings, commitment, passion, drive, etc. E.g., lots of people work really hard throwing their lives away. Darwin smiles at such diversity, but Darwin has a lot of acorns for each oak tree, and many more for each step to a better oak tree. You want a path much better than being an acorn.First-cut, better early advice is the old Measure twice. Saw once. Still better is just knowing what the heck you are doing. So far, after you have had your crucial, original, rare, challenging, insight, the best ways to know are math, science, engineering, and good data.That way, with the math, etc. and after the insight, you can know (totally without passion, dedication, commitment, gut feelings, etc.) very well just what the heck you are doing and, e.g., make the SR-71 a low risk project needing only routine effort.Similarly for LIGO (long arm, laser interferometry gravitational wave observatory or some such): As you likely know, now we have three LIGOs so can point to big collisions in space. First we pointed to a collision of two neutron stars. Just announced we pointed to a collision of two black holes; each was a few solar masses, and after the collision they were short a solar mass. So, one solar mass of energy got converted to the energy of gravitational waves. With the math, …, we really can tell such things, once the math, …, are done, fairly routinely.E.g., Langley was guessing — and maybe had lots of gut feel, passion, whatever such irrational, emotional nonsense — and ended up all wet in the Potomac River. In total contrast, the Wright brothers had a good wind tunnel for measuring lift and drag, could calculate thrust and knew weight, and, thus, were quite sure when they made their trip to Kitty Hawk.These are just simple examples. Much, much more is possible.

        1. Twain Twain

          As long as you’re aware you contradicted and negated your own cognitive biases (against women who want to solve problems and against men who support those women) with this: “there is plenty of opportunity, and, really, need for the mothers also to do their share of the thinking” and your link to the mother cat and baby kitten video.How do you suppose the baby AI is going to get to “human-type intelligence” like the baby kitten if human mothers don’t do their share of the thinking?And what do you suppose is preventing the mothers of AI from doing their share of the thinking and problem-solving?All the daddy engineers irrationally screaming blue murder about how women are encroaching on their territory, based on DEBUNKED research about male+female differences; and the daddy engineers going off on tangents (and round the mulberry bush) about “feminism” and missing the point.[Note: I am not a feminist. I am a HUMANIST.]How is the research debunked? The studies are designed and set up by men-only so that already affects how biased and unrepresentative they are; there’s something called confirmation bias — see the Nobel winning Kahneman on that one.They use survey methods like Likert, OCEAN and others that default to bell curves and Bayesian results. Since we humanists like to base our thinking on maths and science, anyone claiming that the frequency of events is the same as the frequency of brain signals should go back to Maths and Physics 101 class.What did Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky win a Nobel prize for in 2002?”In his evaluation of evidence, man is apparently not a conservative Bayesian. He is not Bayesian at all.”[Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972), Page 450. Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3 , 430-454.]So, all of that “overwhelmingly strong data” you talk about is the real No.2 dump.As for every May and Merkle, we can point to Thatcher, Queen Elizabeth I and Queen Victoria who were not only protective about their countries, they expanded the influence of their countries around the world.Clearly, some women are just as intelligent, strong and capable as men.What evidence do we have for that? Well, the first woman to gain a degree was in 1608. Men have had access to higher education since 1088 (in Bologna), so a full 500+ years before women.Today, the male:female ratio in medical school in the US is 54:46.That means that, with access to education, women have shown EXCEPTIONAL ROI and more than caught up on a par with men, and in expedited time. Remember, men had a 500 year head start.If you want to suggest that those women in medical school aren’t into people AND things like maths, science, engineering, chemistry and all that lovely stuff, then that illogic and bias reflects badly on your intelligence.Now, on the question of a dozen female investors bandying together in 2017 to form a club, let’s note that men have had male-only trade guilds since C14th, so approx 700 years before women.Any modern guy — who screams about how unfair society is to them when they’ve had 700 years of access privilege to trade guilds that helped them to learn and develop knowhow about “things” and that excluded women so they’d continue to be ignorant about “things” (which FORCED women to create their own trade guilds) — negates their own arguments.If men had given women the same and equal access to education and trade guilds then EVERYONE WOULD KNOW & BE BETTER AT “THINGS”. Since men excluded women from that access, they can’t scream blue murder later about how women have been conditioned and socialized not to know “things”! Those men also shouldn’t then conduct studies that self-fulfill and loop on their own cognitive biases.Take notes from the mother cat and the baby kitten about how intelligence is transferred and reinforced.Here’s an African proverb from the Ghanaian scholar, Dr. James Emmanuel Kwegyir-Aggrey (1875-1927): “If you educate a man you educate an individual, but if you educate a woman you educate a family (nation).”Given that China is steaming ahead in technology where 40% of its engineering graduates are women, can the US as a nation afford to keep patronizing and “putting the woman in her place” and making the home a better option for her than the workplace?I mean this seriously. You and millions of other men objecting to and blocking women from succeeding in the workplace, including the simple fact of a dozen female investors creating a trade guild, will result in the US playing second fiddle to the Chinese within a decade.I want to believe the US is better than that. I want to believe that the US will produce more partnerships like Admiral Grace Murray Hopper and Howard Marks, who were pivotal in creating the earliest computers. I want to believe that men and women being treated and trained equally will result in exceptional ROI that’s greater than the sum of their parts.

          1. sigmaalgebra

            As long as you’re aware you contradicted and negated your own cognitive biases I don’t see that I did any such thing. How do you suppose the baby AI is going to get to “human-type intelligence” like the baby kitten if human mothers don’t do their share of the thinking? I made clear: Motherhood, done well, is a LOT of hard work and hard thinking. E.g., I listed some of the more important topics in child development: emotional, verbal, psychological, social, creative, artistic, empathetic, moral, ethical, religious, athletic, academic, mechanical, rational, quantitative, scientific, technical, romantic, entrepreneurial, etc. There is plenty of hard work and good thinking needed there.To expand, considering what K-12 is in practice in the US now, from low end public to high end private, I believe that really good K-12 education flatly just CANNOT be done in the K-12 system, either public or private, and MUST be some version of home schooling. That, and the list of child development topics, needs a smart, well educated mother. Yes, she shouldn’t do it all alone, she should get some outside advice, and home schooling parents should have good access to such advice, good materials, etc., and the husband should help, but there’s plenty for the mother to do.To me, a mother in the world of work while her children are in K-12 just flatly CANNOT be doing nearly her best as a mother. And what do you suppose is preventing the mothers of AI from doing their share of the thinking and problem-solving? The mothers don’t understand the strong need for good work in child development. In particular, too many women believe that going into the world of work is better than anything about motherhood; as I explained, that’s a Big Lie causing a lot of women to throw much of their lives away and be weak, sick, or dead limbs on the tree. For such women, their ideal version of motherhood is to adopt and hire babysitters, use pre-school, etc., or hire a nanny. Won’t work well enough to continue; Darwin is removing the associated genes from the gene pool and cutting it off. All the daddy engineers irrationally screaming blue murder about how women are encroaching on their territory, I hear no such screaming.I hear screaming women wanting the world of work to be friendly for good motherhood. Currently that’s impossible. Good motherhood is too big a job to be shared with good work in the world of work. Sorry ’bout that. based on DEBUNKED research about male+female differences; It’s easy to debunk any research: Just do some more research that is bad research.Research or not, it’s just totally obvious to parents who have children that right away, well before any influences from the world outside the home, already in the crib, the girls pay attention to people and the boys, to things. You need to observe and conclude that. It’s just true. And continuing on: Just go shopping for groceries and watch mothers with children under 5, best both boys and girls. There the girls, to any adult looking at them, are making eye contact, smiling, reacting, trying to elicit smiles from adults, etc. while the boys are ignoring the visitor, want to get out of the stroller or shopping cart, do something kinetic with things, and have no clue about how to interact and react with facial expressions, tone of voice, body language, etc.To see this, you don’t need a research study and only need to go to a grocery store and observe.It takes some really bad emotional intelligence, socialization, social and psychological insight to look at children under 5 and fail to see overwhelmingly strong evidence of the standard differences.On the Internet I could find some still images for you of boys and girls under 5 at, say, weddings where the girls are reacting, engaging, endearing, and getting attention while the boys are bored and wooden, like fence posts.And with plenty of examples on the Internet, the situation holds also in Asia which, from a dirt simple argument, means that it has held for humans for (from the aging rate of female mitochondrial DNA) at least 40,000 years.In one word, already just from the crib, boys and girls are different, really different, very different, very significantly different, as in they just are not nearly the same. In my earlier post, I emphasized DIFFERENT, but you seem to not believe me.With any insight at all, part of this difference is that males are just awful at nurturing young children. “In his evaluation of evidence, man is apparently not a conservative Bayesian. He is not Bayesian at all.” Here you have found another place where a bull went number two: Hopefully no one is “Bayesian”. In just two letters, “Bayesian” is BS, 99 44/100% BS, an unfortunate wack-o, moonbeam, spaced out, ignorant, misinformed niche of the worst in what is sometimes called “statistics”.I can 100% totally assure you that for anyone with a solid background in probability, say, from Doob and Loeve, on, “Bayesian” is at best essentially just some side remarks from some theorems from, say, cases of sequential testing where can show some uniform convergence no matter what the initial “Bayesian” guess work sewage was used at the start. So, early in the sequence, maybe the Bayesian guesses were good and helped or bad and hurt but soon in the sequence don’t matter.I’ll give you some solid advice: F’get about anything and everything “Bayesian”.Yes, one of the pillars of probability is conditioning, conditional probability and expectation, especially from the Radon-Nikodym theorem and as applied in (astounding) martingale theory, “a process adapted to a history” (adapted to a history is quite technical stuff), Markov processes, stopping times, the strong Markov property, etc.Sure. But that Bayesian stuff where people shovel in guesses, maybe from where some bull went number two, is BS.For Subjective probability yup, more of that BS.For As for every May and Merkle, we can point to Thatcher, Queen Elizabeth I and Queen Victoria who were not only protective about their countries, they expanded the influence of their countries around the world. You are going off on a tangent: My point about May and Merkle is just that they have been working hard to admit male dirt bag monsters who solidly believe that it is their right to rape any woman they can find not protected. Why? In Muslim countries, women are not permitted to be out alone and, instead, are to be under the protection 24 x 7 of supposedly caring men — father, brothers, husband — in their families. Any other woman is fair game to be raped.May and Merkle are having a super tough time understanding that Muslim culture, and, thus, a lot of human females are getting raped. Muslims believe that it’s okay to rape and marry a girl of seven and, then, on her wedding night rupture her uterus and have her bleed to death.Right, Islam, the “peaceful religion”. It’s not even a real religion and, instead, is a totally sick-o medieval cultural monstrosity. And May and Merkle want to let that sewage into their crown jewel of civilization countries. I’d assume that women would be the first to protect against rape, but May and Merkle cancel that conjecture. Clearly, some women are just as intelligent, strong and capable as men. Sure. As a student, professor, and husband, I’ve seen a lot of brilliant women. In math, physics, and computing, they were only small fractions of the people, and they were essentially never any competition for me at all. But in the humanities, verbal talent, emotional intelligence, social skills, and much more, they totally blew me away.But I got an expensive lesson, paid full tuition: In the end, no matter how much brilliance or success in academics, nearly always the women got driven — primarily, irresistibly — by female emotions intended for motherhood.For your statement taken simplistically, sure. Roughly, yes. Still men and women are different. And, too often the differences mean that any simplistic interpretation and application of that statement promises disaster.Put simply: Mother Nature was there long before any of the ideas of “equality”. No doubt there were “equal” women; thing is, mostly they are not our ancestors, that is, were weak, sick, or dead limbs on the tree. Each generation there is a new crop, a small fraction, of women who, now with a lot of media total BS, who try again and lose again. Darwin is on the case. If you want to suggest that those women in medical school aren’t into people AND things like maths, science, engineering, chemistry and all that lovely stuff, then that illogic and bias reflects badly on your intelligence. I’ve known women who were terrific at such stuff.But, now that I’ve learned the lessons from paying full tuition that, really, overall, that brilliance doesn’t work very well outside motherhood. Now, on the question of a dozen female investors bandying together in 2017 to form a club, let’s note that men have had male-only trade guilds since C14th, so approx 700 years before women. That was centuries ago, and I’m talking now.Besides, you are following the Big Lie and misinterpreting life hundreds of years ago: There was a LOT of really hard work to do. For that work, there was division of labor. There the women worked really hard.Now, if want to do the best — e.g., be competitive — at parenting, need really good work in motherhood. If men had given women the same and equal access to education and trade guilds then EVERYONE WOULD KNOW & BE BETTER AT “THINGS”. Since men excluded women from that access, they can’t scream blue murder later about how women have been conditioned and socialized not to know “things”! Those men also shouldn’t then conduct studies that self-fulfill and loop on their own cognitive biases. The difference in human males and females about interests in things versus people is already strong in the crib.Later, sure, humans are quite versatile, and women can learn how to replace a water pump on a car, use silver solder on water pipe copper tubing, write software, etc.And a dog can learn how to walk on just two legs, too. Learn? Yes. Good at it? Chancy. Natural? No.For Here’s an African proverb from the Ghanaian scholar, Dr. James Emmanuel Kwegyir-Aggrey (1875-1927): “If you educate a man you educate an individual, but if you educate a woman you educate a family (nation).” Smarter than the usual stuff I’ve heard from Africa.But, sure, he’s right, and I mentioned above that to do well in child development as I outlined, a mother needs, yes, a lot of outside expert consultants but also a good education herself.Again, I believe that her job is to home school all the kids, K-12, and where at the end the kids can skip college and be ready for grad school — no joke. Then they should study for their qualifying exams again independently (e.g., last time I checked, the Princeton math department insisted on that) and then go to campus for research seminars and the research.Supposedly Einstein, Bernanke, and others learned calculus at age 12 — good age for that. I taught myself freshman calculus and started in college on sophomore calculus. With good guidance, I could have done much more much earlier. Kids should learn calculus by age 12, and their mother should either teach them or get some expert help and guide them.Basically I’m asking that each mother be able to teach or at least guide the teaching of all the standard K-college material, in all the subjects. I’m asking a lot.E.g., she should know that in violin, it’s better to concentrate on keys G, D, A, and E and positions 1, 3, and 5. Before teaching either violin or piano, she should teach voice — it’s a big advantage to learn to sing first. She should teach the circle of fifths, etc. She should get the kids into exterior algebra of differential forms and basic relativity theory soon after calculus.I’m saying that a good mother now should work as hard as a good mother did in your 700 years ago. The work will be different but should be no less hard. In particular, the hard work needed from women is still in motherhood, not the world of work usually done by men. making the home a better option for her than the workplace? China can do what it wants, but when they start to see more clearly they, too, will see that for the strongest society the women should work hard but in the home. You and millions of other men objecting to and blocking women from succeeding in the workplace, including the simple fact of a dozen female investors creating a trade guild, will result in the US playing second fiddle to the Chinese within a decade. My track record shows with overwhelming strength that I didn’t “block” women from being successful in the world of work; at big-time high cost, the truth was just the opposite.I’m not complaining about women in the world of work: They are free to do what they want. If they concentrate on the world of work usually done by men or on anything other than motherhood, then they will be weak, sick, or dead limbs on the tree, their genes will leave the gene pool, and what will be left are women that won’t believe the Big Lie and, instead, will concentrate on motherhood — as usual, Darwin will win.For women setting up women-only groups, okay by me. But, now, maybe the women will quit dumping on men in offices with only 20% women? This last is all I’m asking.You didn’t get it the first time: Again, yet again, once again, over again, one more time, if women can set up women’s only groups, then men should not be criticized when some group with men has less than 50% women.E.g., I had a medical problem and go to a clinic occasionally for follow up. I’m fine. But the clinic is interesting: From the clerks to the nurses and physicians, the place is 100% woman. Period. I’ve never seen a single male employee! There may be 100 employees in that clinic without a single male! Maybe there is a male janitor on the night shift to clean the floors or a male who maintains the hot water or some such, but otherwise it’s 100% women. Curious! But okay by me.But there the women are not the real source of the medical knowledge and, instead, get frequent consulting from men, expert specialists, elsewhere.But it’s a fun place to go! The women are REALLY nice! I want to believe that the US will produce more partnerships like Admiral Grace Murray Hopper and Howard Marks, Women struggle terribly in the world of work; I don’t like to see dogs struggle terribly trying to walk on just two legs or, similarly, women struggle in the world of work; and I hate to see women hurt.I want to see women in good marriages and homes and doing much better at getting the population growing again. As it is, we are going extinct, literally and rapidly. To me, each woman in the world of work is a tragic waste of her great and crucial natural talent at motherhood.But, sure, each woman should be fully free to do what they want. And if my company works there may be some places where women could help if my company can keep down the legal, financial, and cultural threats of office hanky panky and if the woman are not threats of being unstable and exploding like a gallon of nitroglycerin.But, again, I don’t have to worry; Darwin is on the case: In a few more generations, the fraction of women who buy into the Big Lie, take the world of work too seriously and motherhood not nearly seriously enough, and be weak, sick, or dead limbs on the tree will be a much smaller fraction of the population. GOOD.

          2. Twain Twain

            Congratulations, fait accompli for you. Few woman of intelligence will work with or for you.They’d rather work and learn with the Freds, Phils and Pointsandfigures. As you noted elsewhere, “Good males put up with this discrimination against males and unfair criticism of males because the males like the females so much.”They’re the good guys who are evolved and actively support women in the workplace. Maybe that’s why they’re such successful guys.

          3. sigmaalgebra

            You are responding to things other than what I wrote.You are unhappy about some thoughts and are attacking me personally; not good.> Few woman of intelligence will work with or for you.Naw! If I my business works and here 70 miles north of Wall Street I go to Vassar, not far away, or a SUNY campus, at least three close, etc. and offer a job in a rapidly growing information technology company, with training, for $150 K a year, then I’ll get plenty of eager applicants, including intelligent women. But I’ll also want and get plenty of older people, both men and women. I’ve seen a lot of REALLY bad managers and employees offering not very good jobs who had no trouble getting employees, and I’m MUCH better as a manager and employer than they were.There are a LOT of really bad employers out there; I’ll be relatively good.But what I hope is that the jobs I will be able to offer will be a great help to people forming really good families.

  11. sull

    It would be nice, as a man, to get advice from a woman instead of men all the time. Maybe another effort could be FemaleAdvisors.org to cater to both men and women founders.

    1. Drew Meyers

      Agreed… men seeking female mentors/advisors seems to be another opportunity worth exploring. I’d personally love to have a way to speak to more women about my business rather than men all the time.