I couldn't help but wonder while reading this comment--have you ever experienced any sort of discrimination or are you a member of any minority group (person of color, gay, non-christian, etc.)?

"Life isn't fair and people with treat you unfairly. No this doesn't entitle you to special treatment." Who is asking for special treatment? Women just don't want to be discriminated against because of their gender--how do you get special treatment from that?

Additionally your logic is flawed--just because you have never heard anybody complain about the lack of women in blue collar jobs (the only jobs you mentioned) doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

And please explain how men being four times more likely to be murdered and ten times as many are in jail ( I'd love you to site where you came up with those statistics and their methodology in obtaining them btw) makes men "inherently inferior?"

A quick Google pulled up the Wikipedia article on Incarceration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration) which actually puts the males at a lower 7 times more likely than women.

Here are the stats for 2005 on murder citing men as 4 times more likely to be murdered. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/gender.cfm

Thanks but I was truly interested in finding out where OP got these stats from, meaning did he also do a quick google search or does he just know these things.

I mentioned methodology in my post because that (to me) is the most important part of validating any statistics. My UG education was in a social science so I pay attention to those types of things. Stuff like this "Homicide as defined here includes murder and nonnegligent manslaughter which is the willful killing of one human being by another. The general analyses excluded deaths caused by negligence, suicide, or accident; justifiable homicides; and attempts to murder. " So we're saying vehicular manslaughter and shooting somebody in the head are the same while in reality they are completely different. Would you say that if you accidentally kill hit somebody and they die this is a murder? I wouldn't. But those cases get tacked on and divided and put through algorithms under the auspice of nurder. Additionally this "While many agencies report supplemental data on homicides, much of the data concerning offenders may not be reported because no suspects were identified. The most significant problem in using SHR data to analyze offender characteristics is the sizable and growing number of unsolved homicides contained in the data file. " So they guess based on what they do know, I have a problem with that. "In other words, offender profiles for unsolved crimes are estimated based on the offender profiles in solved cases matched on victim age, sex, and race; circumstances of the homicide; location of the homicide; and gun involvement; as well as year. All offender-based estimates were imputed using this procedure. "

Those are only a few excerpts that cast doubt on the true validity of the DOJ stats. We have an obsession in this society with quantifying things, even when they can't really be put in to nice little statistics.

I don't know why the caption says 7x

From the table in 2003 male/female incarcerated: 1,316,495/92,785

Yes I have extensive experience with discrimination, and it was much worse than any founder that had to put up with being hit on. Does this make my point more valid or less?

The point isn't a defense of discrimination, but merely a question of total impact. A guy hit on you and you didn't like it? Tell that VC to get bent and go make money without him. See my other comment about how I'd never partner with anyone whom acted in this manner.

There will always be someone that doesn't like you for no good reason male or female. If you look you'll always find a few bad apples. The special treatment is expecting everyone will be nice to you because otherwise it's "discrimination". Men get taken advantage of too, but that doesn't excuse what is effectively a hit piece on an entire industry.

"Additionally your logic is flawed--just because you have never heard anybody complain about the lack of women in blue collar jobs (the only jobs you mentioned) doesn't mean it doesn't happen."

This is true, I admit I'm not a regular jezebel reader and must have missed the article where they mentioned that. Or ever seen an article anywhere lamenting this. Compared to the cacophony of articles lamenting that the geeks are making money and they are all male!

I'd cite my stats, but looks like someone already beat me to it.

"Yes I have extensive experience with discrimination, and it was much worse than any founder that had to put up with being hit on. Does this make my point more valid or less?"

I find it interesting you said you have experience with discrimination and not that you are a member of a minority group, that's what I asked--not whether you've been discriminated against.

As a person who has been discriminated against, I find it completely pointless to say my suffering is worse than anothers--how would I know since I've never experienced it? I challenge you to think of the same thing in regards to this. Moreover, I never said that it would make your point +/- valid, you created that premise on your own. Your post hardly seemed like it came from somebody who has suffered discrimination, def not on the level you claim.

"The point isn't a defense of discrimination, but merely a question of total impact. A guy hit on you and you didn't like it? Tell that VC to get bent and go make money without him. " This assumes you're only going to run in to a few bad apples. Have you stopped to consider it may be way more than a few in this instance? Perhaps it is a systematic and continual thing.

"This is true, I admit I'm not a regular jezebel reader and must have missed the article where they mentioned that. Or ever seen an article anywhere lamenting this." Again, you've applied your own ideas to my words--I said that just because you've never heard about it doesn't mean that it hasn't happened. Your smart remark about Jezebel is non-sequitur to my comment and further more unappreciated. Jezebel covers pop culture and blue collar work is anything but pop-culture.

"I'd cite my stats, but looks like someone already beat me to it." Perhaps you should re-read my comment again, I asked you about methodology thus getting at a deeper analysis of the statistics you site. Also read my response to the comment you're talking about--I took the time to actually read in to the methodology on stats you talked about and expanded on it. Perhaps you take all statistics on face value but I do not.

In general, I think it's kind of funny that you typed such a long response without truly reading what I had to say.

Quoted: "I couldn't help but wonder while reading this comment--have you ever experienced any sort of discrimination or are you a member of any minority group (person of color, gay, non-christian, etc.)?"

You specifically asked if I experienced discrimination or was a minority. I answered accurately.

So I need to "stop to consider" if VC's are mostly bad apples based on a few anecdotes on a site that caters to women, but national DOJ statistics are doubtful? Are you serious?

Perhaps you're right, I'm missing the point, what exactly are you trying to say?

You answered accurately but choose to answer only one part. And to that I still say " that's interesting."

"Have you stopped to consider it may be way more than a few in this instance?" Key words there in this instance. I asked you to consider that in the context of what we're talking about there can be more than a few VCs that are bad apples.

And in regards to DOJ stats, again, it's about context. I mentioned their methodology citing specific examples putting the numbers in context. You in turn don't reply to that instead you respond to my general statement at the end? And then act as if there is something wrong with my argument? What's the point of this if you don't address any of my substantive points and go for the easy quick shots. If you can't offer responses that are actually based on the substance of my comments why even bother responding? You don't have to answer. I was interested in a discourse, but this has devolved in to something that is not that. Have a nice night.

If you're going to pull out the murder/jail card, you can't just quote figures about gender. The elephant in THAT room is race.

The truth is, both the prison system and the murder culture are HIGHLY skewed against black men. If you look at white people in the U.S., 4600 men were killed in 1999, and 2000 women. White men are roughly twice as likely to be killed as white women.

If you look at black people, 5500 black men were killed, versus 1000 black women. And let me remind you that black people make up something like 10% of the population.

The situation is similar for incarceration rates.

So, two takeaway points here:

1) If you're a black man, and a white woman is complaining to you about the sexism she faced in her VC pitch, you may have a right to bring up the Oppression Olympics card.

2) If you're a white man, crying about how horrible is the specter of you getting murdered or sent to jail, in the middle of a conversation about sexism... you're just making excuses. Your likelihood of going to jail or being murdered is much closer to a white woman's.

And the truth is, men commit a much higher portion of violent crime. It's not like women are out there murdering thousands of men every year and getting away with it.

Although white people do sell a lot more drugs than black people and get away with it.

Source: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_informati...

What I see in those statistics is that both race AND gender play a role. Do you see that too?

It's not about oppression olympics, it's about not letting that jerk investor do any more damage by making you bitter towards the whole process. Don't wait for things to be "fair". Accept that there are jerks in life, and play to win anyway. The stats I mentioned were to put the articles anecdotes about tactless investors in perspective.

"2) If you're a white man, crying about how horrible is the specter of you getting murdered or sent to jail, in the middle of a conversation about sexism... you're just making excuses. Your likelihood of going to jail or being murdered is much closer to a white woman's."

You're completely right, my gender and race make my opinion completely invalid. Glad we could have this discussion on equality.

Yes, of course race and gender play a role. I think it's great that you want to help people feel less bitter. I think your approach of saying these situations are unimportant and should be ignored may help some women feel less bitter, but I know for many women that viewpoint just makes them feel more alienated.

Your race doesn't make your opinion invalid. I'm sorry if I implied that. What I was trying to say is that your race may or may not give you the right to derail a conversation about someone else's oppression.

I'd love to have a separate conversation with you about masculinity and the ways the patriarchy hurts men (including by encouraging violence, and through the prison system). But I don't think it has anything to do with the discussion of women's oppression in VC pitches.

You seem to be saying "Well I deal with oppression sometimes, and I deal with it this way, so women should deal with it that way too in this situation" and I'm challenging that equation. I don't think those situations (male/male violence and VC pitch harassement) are equatable.

I'm not sure that the inverse of your statement- that men are considered inherently superior by virtue of the fact that there are more men in the tech industry- is necessarily true, either.