>One of the ways that people slow down progress, in startups or in society, is by resisting unreasonably at every step in a series of steps in an argument.
They key here is _unreasonable_. I do not believe it unreasonable to demand evidence to the extend and nature of sexism in tech (as I have seen no formal study on it at all).
Frankly all I am seeing here are the very methods described in What you can't say being used to silence a debate, because some groups use it to run their own agenda.
>I do not believe it unreasonable to demand evidence to the extend and nature of sexism in tech (as I have seen no formal study on it at all).
I'm trying to not be rude here, but my inclination is to tell you to just go look for such studies or run such a study yourself. Nobody owes you a spoon-fed version of reality on your terms when they make their own decisions.
What is unreasonable is saying that normal business decision practices are not adequate to make this particular decision, and instead a formal, "unbiased" study must be conducted.
The numbers are so extreme that they speak for themselves. Several years of 0% women founders, and now 10%.
There's a double standard for evidence when it comes to sexism (and other cultural issues). Maybe it's because some people take it as a personal affront, as if they're accepting responsibility for the actions of others, and it switches into "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" mode rather than "what's the most likely reality here."
Recently there was a string of articles on Language Log about gender disparities in meetings between men interrupting women and women interrupting men during discussion. A surprisingly large number of comments consisted of men denying the evidence. This type of response is endemic wherever science touches cultural issues. An unbiased scientific study of gender disparity may be useful as a tool for finding where to make corrective steps, but it will convince nearly no one. On issues like this, people stick to their cultural inclinations more than the evidence.
HN has decided to move the conversation forward, and I give them kudos for that.
> I do not believe it unreasonable to demand evidence to the extend and nature of sexism in tech (as I have seen no formal study on it at all).
There have been so many studies, blog posts, and anecdotes about sexism in tech. Basic searching for this stuff will get you all the relevant info you need, nobody is obligated to walk you through it if you aren't aware.
>There have been so many studies, blog posts, and anecdotes about sexism in tech
I am not aware of any studies, otherwise I would have read them. Blog posts and anecdotes - are useful for acting on individual cases of sexism, but because they are, by definition, limited to one or two cases, taken out of the whole, using them as arguments for widespread sexism is wrong (in the sense of incorrect).
They key here is _unreasonable_. I do not believe it unreasonable to demand evidence to the extend and nature of sexism in tech (as I have seen no formal study on it at all).
Frankly all I am seeing here are the very methods described in What you can't say being used to silence a debate, because some groups use it to run their own agenda.