Saying "actually, if I'd known I wouldn't've funded you", when (a) he already had (b) she was already committed to parenthood provided no useful information whatsoever to her ... except for the information that one of her investors was capable of engaging in pointless criticism based on couterfactuals and that as such her estimate of his capacity to maintain relationships with other people should likely be revised downwards.

Because, realistically, non-actionable after-the-fact criticism is a WOFTAM and risks damaging the relationship to no gain.

He screwed up and spoke honestly for a moment. That makes him human, not an asshole.

Also, I specifically said that the "estimate of his capacity to maintain relationships with other people should likely be revised downwards" which was intentionally rather more nuanced than "asshole"/"not an asshole".

It would in fact be silly for a school to run such a program, if only because the data on achievement so strongly opposes it. Same for entrepreneurship and parenting; the median founder age is 40 and older age correlates with success[1]. No doubt many of these older, more successful founders are parents.

Of course we're not talking merely about study time or even parenting, but an attitude and complex of poorly reasoned arguments calculated to keep women disadvantaged. This is beyond silliness; it is chauvinism masquerading as (pseudo) intellectualism.

[1] http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/28/peak-age-entrepreneurship/

Neither strategy worked [to keep the Jews out]. Finally, Lowell—and his counterparts at Yale and Princeton—realized that if a definition of merit based on academic prowess was leading to the wrong kind of student, the solution was to change the definition of merit...

...Lowell told his admissions officers to elicit information about the “character” of candidates...provide a photograph...personal essays, demonstrating their aptitude for leadership, and list their extracurricular activities.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/10/10/051010crat_atlar...

But yes, I'm sure you are right - expecting founders to focus solely on their startup is "calculated to keep women disadvantaged". I'm sure that if a man wanted to, I dunno, do a startup without quitting his day job, investors would be totally fine with that.

"But what did Hunter achieve with that best-students model?... As graduates... they weren’t nearly as distinguished as they were expected to be... The researchers spend a great deal of time trying to figure out why Hunter graduates are so disappointing, and end up sounding very much like Wilbur Bender. Being a smart child isn’t a terribly good predictor of success in later life, they conclude. 'Non-intellective' factors—like motivation and social skills—probably matter more... [Harvard] wanted superstars, and Bender and his colleagues recognized that if this is your goal a best-students model isn’t enough."

You cited an explicitly anti-semitic policy as a model of what investors should be doing, while implying that anyone who disagreed was somehow trying to keep women disadvantaged. Huh?

You then cite a study showing that drive and determination matter in addition to academics. No one disputes this. That's why a woman founder demonstrating a lack of determination (i.e., choosing to divide her focus) was a disappointment to the investor, who was stupidly honest for a moment before deciding to hide his real feelings.

Certain specific seemingly non-academic factors also promote life success. That doesn't mean that any random hobby does. An investor isn't an asshole simply because he doesn't think that pregnancy is on the list of non-academic factors that do promote investment success.

Did no such thing. You cited it, incorrectly characterizing it as "why colleges ask about extracurriculars and leadership."

You misread your source, and are wholesale missing the bigger point that success is often about more than maximizing hours in the office/library.

You actually remind me of that right-wing group that Tim Cook just smacked down in the latest Apple shareholder meeting. Poor politically-motivated reasoning masquerading as shareholder interest.