It would seem to me this would be more accurately titled: "20 female Bloggers I think our cool, and 10 female entrepreneurs who are actually impressive."
Well, to some extent visible role models and tangibly successful women (look how much she earns!) can be inspirational. It's just a matter of how you present it. (Hint: not like this.)
Yeah, this was clearly well-intended, but so poorly constructed that it accomplished the opposite. The article is actually sexist because it lists people whose only accomplishment is becoming an internet pseudo-celebrity.
There are lots of actual female entrepreneurs out there in the tech industry I'd nominate, only a few of which were in there. Diane Greene, for instance, cofounded VMWare and ran it into a huge success, but doesn't make the list. I guess she doesn't have enough Twitter followers. Maybe she should publish a video with her iPhone bill or get 30,000 people reading her RSS feed and then she'll qualify as an entrepreneur.
I hope no one takes offense, but I never really liked the idea of attempting to inspire a member of human subgroup X only with examples of successful fellow X-ers, or even just focusing on those examples. I prefer to emphasize that an individual X-er may be capable of accomplishing just as much as any human has.
If a member of subgroup Y is the first human on Mars, why should we have to wait for an X-er to step on Mars before we can tell X-ers they can do it, too? Can't an X-er be equally inspired by a Y-er, or indeed any human?
(Substitute in any racial or gender groups of your choice for X and Y.)
I far prefer the "making successful X-ers obviously visible within a wider context" approach, but this can involve skewing to some extent.
If only 5% of successful humans in one area are X-ers, and the rest all Y-ers, then you are less likely to see any X-ers in lists, interviews, the media, etc; it also becomes special when you do, which in itself can make X-ers think "this isn't the area I can succeed in". But artificially pointing out all successful X-ers only makes them more of a rare item, reinforcing this view!
Simply presenting a mixed front with realistic examples of success from both X and Y seems a better way. And having mentors that believe that, despite only ever personally knowing Y-ers, an X can do just as well if not better.
I don't think your comment is offensive, and I get what you're saying -- you would prefer that all of humanity be inspired by what one of us does. Regrettably this is not the case.
People identify more with people that look like themselves. This is a bug in the human OS and we can't ever totally fix it. Even if we could somehow fix that, there are good reasons why someone will gauge their own chances based on the success of others who are similar to them, especially in a society that's still working on eliminating racial and gender disparities.
Let me take an example closer to home. Paul Graham's theory about Y Combinator was, among other things, that people were ready to found successful companies at a much earlier age than was previously suspected. He has pretty much proven this by now, and I know lots of bright kids who are ready to take the startup plunge.
But think of how people felt before -- "I can't start a company, I'm just a college kid" or "What do I know about business, I've just worked in a coffee shop" or "The people who start computer businesses have to be really smart, I don't even have a degree yet." or even if they do think they have the skills, that "nobody is going to trust a kid like me, the game is stacked against me. Forget it." And there is even the worry that one might succeed, but then be totally alone and alienated from all your friends.
If the barrier is that high just for ageism, consider how much higher it is for sexism and racism. And people grow up and leave their youthful inexperience behind; you can't do the same with gender or ethnic background. Think how much more mental fortitude it would take to try to succeed in a profession where you'll always be the odd person out due to your gender or color. Knowing that someone's blazed the trail for you becomes very important.
I see what you mean, and I get the motivation for this kind of thing. I'd quibble with your choice of example, though - Paul backtracked on that, unfortunately. But leaving that aside, I liked the way you described the reason for all this: as a bug. As intelligent beings (ha ha), I think humans should try to be aware of the bug and work around it, instead of reinforcing it, which is what this does. (In this case, sexism is reinforced.)
Consider the implications of your last sentence: The trail has only been blazed for you if someone else in your subgroup has done something already. It hasn't been blazed if some other human did it. Again, this just reinforces the separation of humans into subgroups, instead of rejecting the importance of subgroups entirely.
Well, I think it's partially a bug, and even in some perfectly egalitarian future we'll still have to deal with it. But at the present time, it's also firmly rooted in fact. People from different groups have different opportunities, no matter how talented they might be. If you're from the wrong kind of neighborhood, it's hard to escape the conclusion that either (a) your people are not meant for better things, or (b) the whole society is in some kind of conspiracy against you.
I mean, look at these kids -- they beat MIT in a robotics competition, but one of them now hangs drywall for a living.
Yeah, I get that there's a huge legal problem here, (they're undocumented), but just compare their story, to say, the drug-addled C student that got to be president. The USA has a long way to go before it's a perfect meritocracy.
That said, I do have a lots of problems with the whole inspiring-role-model concept. It can be unrealistic to say that because some ultra-nerd got a scholarship, that this somehow should inspire someone of merely average talents who won't get special treatment. And to go back to the original post, it was really patronizing to stretch the concept of "entrepreneur" to cover notorious bloggers. That kind of bogosity is common in the self-esteem industry.
IIRC, about four years ago you made the point that if grad students can start companies, undergrads can too. Some time later, I believe you implied that you'd gone too far, and undergrads generally weren't as ready as you'd thought. I think one of the reasons you once mentioned was that people who'd worked for a while had experienced how much it sucked, and this made them more determined or desperate when they ran their startups.
That first point was in an essay or talk, but the second might have been somewhere else. Maybe "backtracked" wasn't the best word (backpedaled, maybe?), because I'm not saying you completely reversed your position and started rejecting all young people, but I hope it's clear what I'm getting at.
Current undergrads do turn out to be at a disadvantage as startup founders. But because of the gravitational attraction of college, not because of their age.
Sure, but doesn't this increase the average age of YC founders, especially since you still advise young people to go to college?
Put another way, rather than telling 18-year-olds to start companies, you now tell them to go to college for the experience - where, as you say, they're at a disadvantage as startup founders. I assume you wouldn't tell them to do both at the same time.
"If a member of subgroup Y is the first human on Mars, why should we have to wait for an X-er to step on Mars before we can tell X-ers they can do it, too?"
If everyone who has landed on Mars, the Moon, or any other extraterrestrial body is a member of subgroup Y, and so is the vast majority of people who have done anything like it, then maybe the point does need to be made that someone outside of subgroup Y can do it, too.
It sounds like you're disagreeing with me, but that's exactly my point. Are you going to wait for an X-er to do it before you make that point, or will you make the point even if it's only been Y-ers so far?
Well, if you're the one to make that point that makes you the first X-er on Mars. But you deserve some credit for that achievement as well. More credit than just "another guy who landed on Mars" but less credit than the first man on Mars, I estimate.
Because sometimes there may be barriers in place that make it slightly harder for an X-er than a Y-er, meaning the achievement is significant to some extent.
What I mean is an X-er can be told he or she can accomplish something even if another X-er hasn't done it yet. If I understood philwelch correctly, he's saying that an X-er has to actually do it before other X-ers can be told it's possible. But this presents a dilemma.
