Too Few Women In Tech? We Aren't Blaming Men.

Success in Silicon Valley, most would agree, is more merit driven than almost any other place in the world. It doesn’t matter how old you are, what sex you are, what politics you support or what color you are. If your idea rocks and you can execute, you can change the world and/or get really, stinking rich.

via techcrunch.com

 I needed more coffee before I could respond to Michael Arrington's blog post Too Few Women In Tech? Stop Blaming The Men. Here is my response:

Dear Michael Arrington,

I don't know you so I reserve judgement on your character and will not base it solely on your post about women in Silicon Valley.

You do not know me, however, I helped pioneer the Web for women back in the early to mid-90s and founded the first woman-owned Internet company - Cybergrrl, Inc. - and the first organization to help women gain a foothold in the budding Internet and new media industries - Webgrrls International.

I'm not a whiner or complainer (except over a glass of wine with friends). I'm a doer. I'm an instigator. I'm an innovator. I'm a leader. I create things, build things, write things. Make things happen.

I cannot believe we are STILL having the EXACT SAME CONVERSATIONS today as we were in 1995 when women made up 10% of the INTERNET population, and I was only one of a handful of women helming a tech startup.

I'd like to take you to task for some of the things you said in your post: Too Few Women In Tech? Stop Blaming The Men. You may have written your post to be provocative or for link bait, however, I'm just taking what you said at face value.

I say the following out of the utmost of respect for what you have achieved in your life and career but also based on having years more experience than you:

a) working in the tech/new media/Internet industries (In 2008, you were selected by TIME Magazine as one of the most influential people in the world. In 2005, I was selected by NEWSWEEK Magazine as one of the Top 50 People Who Matter Most on the Internet.); and

b) being a female entrepreneur in the tech industry. (Oh, that's right, you aren't even female so I have a leg up on you on that front!).

Success in Silicon Valley, most would agree, is more merit driven than almost any other place in the world. It doesn’t matter how old you are, what sex you are, what politics you support or what color you are. If your idea rocks and you can execute, you can change the world and/or get really, stinking rich.

Actually, you are wrong, Michael Arrington. Merit is one of the least important aspects of success in Silicon Valley. Yes, having some experience and successes under your belt cannot hurt, but many (men) get by on just as many failures as successes and are given opportunity - and money - because they have "experience under their belt" regardless of the merit of their past experiences. Women - because they tend to run their businesses more conservatively - have fewer businesses explode under their watch. A great deal of women-owned businesses run off of their own revenues versus borrowing money or burning through investments from others. Part of this, granted, is because it is still so damn hard for women to get bank loans and venture capital.

It does matter how OLD you are. Ageism is rampant in Silicon Valley. If you were born before 1970, chances are you are considered "old" unless you are male and can then be considered a "gray hair" which is actually a great position to be in because regardless of your credentials, your gray hair demonstrates wisdom and seasoning. For women, gray hair signifies old, haggard, sloppy, too lazy to dye your hair, too feminazi to care about hair dye, you name it - I've heard it all. Show me a handful of older women (over 40) with up-and-coming or significant tech startups AND a head full of gray hair. Go ahead, find them. I'll wait while you're looking.

It does matter what SEX you are. This isn't a male bashing statement but a truth that I've experienced time and time again as a female tech serial entrepreneur: Male venture capitalists tend to fund male-helmed companies. I've been told by many VC's that they funded a young man because "he reminded me of me when I was his age." Just check the investing records of any male venture capitalist to see the ratio of the number of male-helmed companies they invested in versus female. According to Juanita Weaver of the Women's Center for Women's Business Research, "women own 50% or more of some 10.4 million businesses, about 41% of all privately held companies in the U.S." but only 3% to 5% of those companies receive venture capital funding.

(See: Why Venture Capital Firms Need More Women Partners - BusinessWeek)

Now to be totally fair and balanced here, this is NOT to say that I don't blame women for some of this discrepancy because I absolutely do. We stand in our own way of our own successes. I watch it happen time and time again, and I do it all the time myself. That's a separate issue that needs to be addressed, and I have some ideas about that.

But I do believe that women have to make inherently deeper and more devastating life sacrifices in order to enjoy the same or similar kinds of successes - and access - as males. It's a societal thing that none of us - not men or women - seem to be able to overcome even though many of us know that it is sick, insidious, and wrong.

For the most part I’ve sat on the sidelines over the years during the endless debates about how we need to do more to encourage more women to start companies.

You are part of the problem, Michael Arrington. You are a successful, young, white male who has the ear and eye of many powerful men in the tech industry, and you - like too many of them - have sat on the sidelines over the years scratching your heads or scratching your balls. Not many of you have taken positive actions to make positive changes in the system to create more opportunity for ANYONE who is not white and male. 

I'm not talking tokenism. I'm not talking special "Minority-only" or "Women-only" forums - but tearing down and rebuilding a foundation that truly addresses the inherent and deeply-entrenched barriers that keep women back and to a lesser extent - but no less important - keeps minorities back as well.

I'm not looking for a handout, however, as long as the foundation under us all favors men - and in the case of tech startups young men - we'll never get to parity or even a reasonable representation of women helming tech startups. Don't get me started on women helming Fortune 500, 100 or Fortune 10 companies.

(See CNN Money: (In 2009), 15 FORTUNE 500 companies are run by women, and a total of 28 FORTUNE 1000 companies have women in the top job. That's up from last year, when 12 FORTUNE 500 and 24 FORTUNE 1000 companies were run by women. ZERO women helm Fortune 10 companies. 

We are all operating on a terrain with so many pitfalls, potholes and road bumps that greatly affect women - not men - or puts women at a gross disadvantage and nobody in true positions of power does anything about it. These are things inbred in our tech industry - and most industry in general - that are NOT deliberately there to hamper women's progress but ARE overlooked and continue to hamper women's progress. 

We need full and total reconstruction or at the very least build more pipelines to circumvent the pitfalls, fill in the potholes and smooth down the road bumps. 

Fixing the system helps EVERYONE, not just women. 

You said:

Every damn time we have a conference we fret over how we can find women to fill speaking slots. We ask our friends and contacts for suggestions. We beg women to come and speak. Where do we end up? With about 10% of our speakers as women.

I'd laugh so hard about this gratuitous statement if it didn't anger me and frustrate me to tears. 

Why? Because this is the EXACT EXCUSE that I've been hearing since 1995 starting with NEWSEEK Magazine telling me the reason there were only 5 women on there list of 50 People Who Matter Most on the Internet was because they fretted over how they could find them and couldn't so concluded there weren't any.

This past year, I spoke with several people who run tech conferences and hear the same tired refrains.

One, a very nice male, said, "we keep putting out a call for more women to speak but just aren't getting the response." 

Another younger male said, "we go out of our way to try to get more women, but even when we find them, they end up not submitting anything or they drop out shortly after being selected." 

Another, a woman who vehemently claims she is a feminist told me, "I sat in a room of men and women, and we tried really hard to think of qualified women to speak at our conference but just couldn't think of any."

This all took place in 2010. Nothing is changing for the better.

Don't even get me started about 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, or 1995 when I started my first Internet company.

You said:

We won’t put women on stage just because they’re women – that’s not fair to the audience who’ve paid thousands of dollars each to be there. But we do spend an extraordinary amount of time finding those qualified women and asking them to speak.

Give me a break, Michael Arrington.

Women aren't asking for or expecting tokenism. 

And I am so interested in hearing exactly how much time you spend - how much exactly is an "extraordinary amount of time finding those qualified women and asking them to speak?" A few days? A few weeks? A few months? And how many women, exactly? A dozen? Half a dozen? Three? And how do you actually go about doing this? What is your methodology for identifying, tracking down and approaching women? How hard is it, really?

And you know what? A lot of the time they say no. Because they are literally hounded to speak at every single tech event in the world because they are all trying so hard to find qualified women to speak at their conference.

Seriously? You really expect us to believe that you are getting turned down by several or a handful of or many women whom you have approached because they are being hounded to appear at all these conferences? 

Did you ever think of asking them who THEY might recommend? Every woman in tech has a network of other women helming tech startups EVEN if they are the kind of woman who doesn't believe that women should be getting special treatment or doesn't attend any women-only tech events or forums. We all have rolodexes filled with qualified people in general, and each woman you ask would be able to refer you to at least 2-3 other women instantly. Did you even bother to ask?

And if you did, are you telling me that all THOSE women are also being hounded by all the tech conferences? And the women they know, too?  

Your circles are far too small, your reach far too narrow. You are missing dozens if not hundreds of women who would qualify to speak at your events. You just don't know how to find them, how to approach them, and how to remove the barriers for their entry even once they receive an invitation from you. You have NO IDEA.

And what it is is this: statistically speaking women have a huge advantage as entrepreneurs, because the press is dying to write about them, and venture capitalists are dying to fund them. Just so no one will point the accusing finger of discrimination at them.

 I am just hoping - praying - that you don't believe your own words here. Because they are refuted loudly and clearly by any analysis or report out there. Women get such a paltry number of venture dollars, it isn't even criminal, it is insane how little venture capital we get. And the media is dying to write about women? Open any business magazine, any tech magazine, and count the number of stories about women versus men. Count them. Now. Go ahead. I'll wait for you.

The problem isn’t that Silicon Valley is keeping women down, or not doing enough to encourage female entrepreneurs. The opposite is true. No, the problem is that not enough women want to become entrepreneurs.

Are you for real? No intelligent human - male or female - would state that the problem is "not enough women want to become entrepreneurs." There is NO DEARTH OF FEMALE ENTREPRENEURS out there. There isn't even a dearth of female tech entrepreneurs. While I will admit that women may go for less hard tech-type companies, that doesn't mean there is a dearth of female entrepreneurs, even in tech.

Everywhere from schools where young women are interested in more technical pursuits to college and university computer science and engineering programs to incubators for tech startups - they all have a bitch of a time keeping females in their programs.

The issue is that broken terrain I described above. The pipelines for getting more women through tech needs everyone's support.

 I’m from Mars, not Venus and I cannot speak intelligently about the nurturing and risk tolerance needs of women.

You are right, Michael Arrington. You cannot speak intelligently on this matter. But you can help those of us who can and those of us who have ideas or projects that can change the fundamental landscape we are all working within to make things better across the board - and that includes increasing the representation of women at the helm of tech startups in Silicon Valley and beyond.

What You Can Do, Michael Arrington

You may not have the knowledge or experience to speak intelligently about issues surrounding women's access to capital or the type of support they need to start and grow tech startups, but you have the money and the media muscle to help those who do. Put your money where your mouth is, Arrington.

Support the following projects:

Springboard Enterprises - Offers programs which educate, showcase and support women entrepreneurs as they seek equity capital and grow their companies.

Pipeline - Pipeline runs proof-of-concept labs to accelerate women innovators through their career pipelines, operates a social venture fund that invests in women-led triple-bottom line (TBL) startups, and produces #womaninnovator, a media campaign that increases the visibility of women innovators.

Chain of Daisies - (Disclaimer: This is a brand new project I'm developing.) - Linking women who've presented at business, tech, and venture conferences with women who are qualified and aspire to do so. Partnering with major conferences to help them access more qualified female speakers. Offering women networking, mentoring, tips, and training.

Further reading:

WSJ: Addressing the Lack of Women Leading Tech Startups

- Shira Ovide quotes Fred Wilson: "The industry needs catalysts to start a virtuous circle of more successful women-led tech start-ups leading to more women in tech-startups." Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/arrington-women-entrepreneurs-stop-blaming-men-for-your-problems-2010-8#ixzz0yJt6wN1C

In response to Michae Arrington's Too Few Women in Tech

What are YOU doing to make positive change on a not-so-positive ongoing problem?

Update - Links to other responses:

Thought this might be helpful to see a wide range of responses to Arrington's post.

In Response to Michael Arrington's “Too Few Women in Tech” Article by Helena Stone 

  Arrington: "Women Entrepreneurs -- Stop Blaming Men For Your Problems by Alyson Shontell 

  Arrington is completely wrong about women in technology on Seldo.com 

   Mike Arrington is a Sexist Pig: Say PeeeeG! on Netizen 

  Too few women in tech? Blame sexism. by Ivan Boothe 

 Women Don’t Need Exposure by Rebecca Thorman

Fretting, asking, and begging isn’t a plan: a response to TechCrunch on women in technology by Jon Pincus*

  If you wrote a response to that post and would like to be listed here, please let me know or add in comments. 

*Also from Jon Pincus' post:

Allyson Kapin’s Stop Playing the Blame Game, Ja-Naé Duane’s 5 Simple Ways to Help Women as Tech Leaders, and Jessica Wakeman’s 18 Reasons Your Company Might Be a Sausagefest all have some specific suggestions for Michael and TechCrunch — or anybody else who’s working on diversity.  Here’s my perspective.

If you really want to make progress, treat it the way you would any other business problem you take seriously. Set goals, put a plan together, hire good people to help you, and do some real outreach.  Work with organizations like Change The Ratio, Women Who Tech, Anita Borg Institute, GeekFeminism, BlogHer, Fem2pt0, TechMavens, Women 2.0, ASTIA and so on.  Invite them to guest post regularly on TechCrunch.  Go to their events.  Pay a diversity consultant and invest in their recommendations.   Oh and while you’re at it please work on race, age, and other biases in TechCrunch and your other enterprises.

Comments

[Leslie Poston]

I love this level headed, fact charged counter argument, even though I tend to agree with this point above all others in this endless debate (A debate that I feel contributes to the problem just by continuing, flatly. It's time to move forward with actions and stop navelgazing at the problem.):

"Now to be totally fair and balanced here, this is NOT to say that I don't blame women for some of this discrepancy because I absolutely do. We stand in our own way of our own successes. I watch it happen time and time again, and I do it all the time myself. That's a separate issue that needs to be addressed, and I have some ideas about that."

I've got programs at local level encouraging girls to stay in school via mentoring and encouraging women to stop with "separate but equal" mentality and take the equality means no special treatment and also means being willing to self promote and co-promote and generally champion ourselves and others, and if there are more ways to help without segregating into all women conferences, etc, I'm all ears and would love to help.

[John]

While i agree with what you said here in this article, for the most part. Your style is confrontational. Men are more likely to be receptive if you don't attempt to make every issue, even one that affects men into a womans only thing. Like the ageism. Are you serious? If the gender disparity of men and women now is bad, back in the day it was atrocious. Really aren't too many women around in the tech business to suffer from this ageism, so if its "rampant" then it must, by nature of the industry, affect men a great deal. Also the whole scratching your balls is no different then when male authors put little jabs in like "crying your eyes out", or "on your period" its just not necessary. -_-.

[Aliza Sherman]

Leslie - check out my new project Chain of Daisies. Would love your input.

John - I did say in the beginning of my post that I'm an "agitator." But your point is well taken. I waited a while before posting because I was so angry, but my snarky style still does dominate, doesn't it? And what, you didn't like my "balls" comment? I loved that one.

[SugarJones]

Did you ever know that you're my hero?

PS: I loved the "balls" comment. Laughed out loud, actually.

[Aliza Sherman]

Thanks Sugar! That really did crack me up, too.

[Aliza Sherman]

From another great commentary:

Fretting, asking, and begging isn’t a plan: a response to TechCrunch on women in technology by Jon Pincus

http://www.talesfromthe.net/jon/?p=1552

[Tim]

So you made some interesting points about men being on the extremes (major failures, major success), and women being more conservative (moderate successes, moderate failures). Could this be why they might not get as much VC funding. Could VC's be going for home runs (big risks), and not looking for conservative leadership (small stable gains, over much longer periods of time)? This is interesting, and I think worth addressing.

[Aliza Sherman]

Tim - I do believe it is part of the issue in some cases. I've also heard from VC's - male and female - that women don't know how to sell themselves, come ill prepared in terms of the numbers side of their business when pitching, and other things that tell me we are not getting the kind of education and support we need to hit the high notes AND we still suffer from lack of self esteem in many cases that doesn't serve us well. I think all of these dynamics are worth addressing. That's part of what I hope to address in my Chain of Daisies project.

[Tim]

Also had some more questions.
Its it that you are insinuating that Arrington is lying when he says he puts in dedicated efforts to find women, or he is just being disingenuous. Also, I would like to point out that CEO at TechCrunch is a women, and I would like to think she wouldn't idly sit by and let that sort of marginalization occur. Or do you think this is case. I think to do an honest critique you need to address the fact that the boss is a woman.

Also, I think even you will have to admit that there is dearth of females in tech entrepreneurship. It follows from the fact that there is a dearth of women in tech. My school, at the heart of the valley, granted 89ish Male BSCS and 7 female BSCS, 29ish Male BSEE and 7 female BSEE. It follows the constituency of graduates that go the startup route will be overwhelmingly male, since its been that way from the beginning. Thats the issue to address, because this is where the problem stems from.

I don't like Arrington at all. I loved it when Carol Bartz, Leo Laporte, gave it to him straight.

But still, you don't know him either. And your aweful quick to say he's not even trying.

[Aliza Sherman]

Tim - You are right that I do not know and am certainly not implying that he's lying. He is sadly misinformed about some of the issues. That's why I am asking questions. I'd love for the TechCrunch CEO to weigh in. Would be very interesting indeed.

[www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkgtM14aJ_fgPT_e2eGUVbxxkae2ZaF2wc]

This is a really frustrating read for a guy who thinks sexism sucks, who thinks feminism is great, and who likes to think he's a rational person but can't see a rational way through the problems you're describing.

"Your circles are far too small, your reach far too narrow. You are missing dozens if not hundreds of women who would qualify to speak at your events. You just don't know how to find them, how to approach them, and how to remove the barriers for their entry even once they receive an invitation from you. You have NO IDEA."

There is the beginning of where you start to build the case that men are incapable of understanding or doing anything about sexism in the technology field. And here is where you practically say it explicitly:

"You are right, Michael Arrington. You cannot speak intelligently on this matter."

How is this NOT saying "screw you?" I read the original article. It sounded to me like he was expressing frustration with the process of trying to work towards a more universally inclusive gender environment in the tech world, and was inviting help. You and other repliers to this article seem to start by belittling any attempts at inclusivity he's made and then finally offer some half-hearted "suggestions" that either a) aren't really suggestions or b) aren't things people on the ground can do anything about. If Michael Arrington does the following:

1) mentors a woman fresh out of college and interested in the startup scene in SF,
2) treats women at events as being intellectually interesting just like he would any guy (he doesn't sound like the type not to, honestly) and
3) refrains from hitting on women at events,

(taken from the "18 reasons your company might be a sausagefest" link)

that does exactly jack and squat about the dearth of women in the field. The problem is structural and happens much before the "I'm looking for seed money for my startup" stage. It is educational and social and starts when girls are in their single-digit years.

Yes, Arrington was defensive. I might be too in his position. There is little someone at the top of a tech firm can do beyond what he very likely already does to help balance the gender gap.

Or is there? I would love to read more concrete suggestions beyond "you just can't possibly understand."

[ChandraNalaani]

"to a lesser extent - but no less important - keeps minorities back as well."

'To a lesser extent'? How do you figure that?

Checklist: http://bit.ly/9pmJGA

When you own your own blind spots, people may be more open to hearing about theirs.

Good to see the strength though.

[Deliber]

"Ageism is rampant in Silicon Valley. If you were born before 1970, chances are you are considered "old" unless you are male and can then be considered a "gray hair" which is actually a great position to be in because regardless of your credentials, your gray hair demonstrates wisdom and seasoning. For women, gray hair signifies old, haggard, sloppy, too lazy to dye your hair, too feminazi to care about hair dye, you name it - I've heard it all. Show me a handful of older women (over 40) with up-and-coming or significant tech startups AND a head full of gray hair."

I am one of the "old women" (over 40) you speak of. Beginning in 1995, I got a lot of hands-on experience working for a start-up (one that didn't make huge profits), and went on to start a Web design business of my own. Even though I became a proficient Web developer, the men I worked for/with always treated me as if I were a graphic designer with no programming knowledge (including HTML, which while not a programming language, they perceived as "above me"). They always disparaged my ideas and work, made rude comments about my looks, and made sexist jokes in front of me.

Recently, while struggling with a flare-up of a rare illness I suffer from, a young male IT person decided to use my temporary difficulty concentrating and expressing myself to harm my reputation. His reason for doing this was that he, in his infinite male greatness, decided that I was "stupid and incompetent." Rather than allowing potential clients to decide for themselves whether to hire me, he posted information everywhere he could think of "warning" people not to hire me. And, despite knowing that I was a single woman, he posted my home address on the Internet along with disparaging remarks about me, thus jeopardizing my safety.

Of course, many people still value my work and my abilities. However, as I get older, the problems with disrespect from men get worse. Now that I have recovered from my recent illness, I am looking for a different line of work - one where I have as little contact with men as possible.

The bottom line is that educating men will not work. Even if men give lip service to women's equality, a high percentage of them still see women as inferior to men in all ways other than in child bearing. This sexist mindset permeates every facet of society. Changing it will not be a simple task. But, until the stereotypes of men and women are eradicated, and gender perceptions are changed from a conceptual standpoint, women will not break the barriers to success that still stand in their way.

[A Proud Hustler]

The bottom line is that it's a hard fucking world out there and you gotta have fucking guts and a steamroller of a personality to make shit happen, woman or man.

Whining about "No one is showing up on my doorstep and handing me venture capital/speaking engagements/party invites/developers/cosmos" will achieve exactly what it has achieved in your lifetime: Absolutely Nothing.

And the reality is that some of us dudes out here are busting our ass, living on nothing, bearing rejection after rejection, etc. and STILL building awesome shit because FUCK THE NAYSAYERS. That's life in this business, regardless of you're a man or a woman. Unless you have a trust fund, things must be earned...the hard way. And that means you gonna get punched in the face a few times.

Whining posts like this one and Tereza's XX combinator bit only make the real hackers and the real hustlers among us respect you and people like you less. While you whine, we hack and we hustle and we earn our place in this competitive, pretentious, nasty world.

[Stacey Mulcahy]

You might want to revisit this statement

"I cannot believe we are STILL having the EXACT SAME CONVERSATIONS today as we were in 1995 when women made up 10% of the female population, and I was only one of a handful of women helming a tech startup."

Women - 10% of the female pop? Confusing.

[www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=621599484]

Thanks for linking to my blog post. http://goo.gl/fb/YRu8r I have You might also be interested in http://goo.gl/fb/cCB0E and http://goo.gl/fb/RNovy and http://goo.gl/fb/49GZ8 and http://goo.gl/fb/Grwz3

I am about to write yet another post on the topic. I am loving it that this debate has taken off so.

[www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=621599484]

Aliza Sherman Takes Mike Arrington To Task http://goo.gl/fb/Fuuu8

[John]

Also important to note the following.

http://www.businessinsider.com/vc-funding-demographics-20-2010-7-charts

It looks like 45-54 year olds get funded better than 26-34 year olds and 35-44 year olds in Mass. and NY, and better than 35-44 year olds in California.

The graph looks to have come from here
http://www.cbinsights.com/blog/venture-capital/venture-capital-human-capital-report-gender-and-education

Its comprehensive study on demographics in VC world, how much funding goes to who, composition of teams, etc.(btw only 1% of VC money on annual goes to Black founders where as 8% goes to women so you might want to check that "lesser extent" minorities bit, there are def fewer black men in tech than white women.)

So I guess there is truth to Arrington statement if you have a good ideas get money regardless of age. (He didn't necessarily say Bob the senior engineer would value your opinion and treat you the same as everybody else) but hes right. VC fund people regardless of age. And if you execute, you will make money.

[Mary Branscombe]

I love the way that John calls you out for being 'confrontational', compared to Arrington, whose entire persona is based on being abrasive. Have you ever noticed how what's bold and forthright in a man is pushy and bitchy in a woman? Is that we women haven't learned to own our strength or is it that society has a gender bias for how women should and shouldn't act?

And I can't believe that I still get commissioned to write 'where are all the women' pieces 20 years after I started in tech journalism...

Useful resource: the Ada Lovelace Day network.
Tech company that has a larger than you'd think number of women in significant positions: Microsoft.

[John]

Mary. get over it. the author already owned up to being confrontational. Arrington is always an ass in his articles. and the author was being confrontational. Dont try to make this again into some rediculous womens only issue. 99.9 percent tech journalist call out arrington for being an asshole. And when I say the author, Aliza, was being confrontational this all of a sudden become some philosophical issue about womens strength? gimme a break. you must be entirely ignorant of the tech world. Michael Arrington is public enemy no. 1 (among men and women) for being an asshole. -_-.