<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_07_1555254</id>
	<title>Silicon Valley VCs and the Gender Gap</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1265561880000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>fysdt writes with this excerpt from TechCrunch:
<i>"An analysis of Dunn and Bradstreet data shows that of the 237,843 firms founded in 2004, <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2010/02/07/silicon-valley-you\%E2\%80\%99ve-got-a-gender-problem-and-some-of-your-vc\%E2\%80\%99s-still-live-in-the-past/">only 19\% had women as primary owners</a>. And only 3\% of tech firms and 1\% of high-tech firms (as in Silicon Valley) were founded by women. Look at the executive teams of any of the Valley's tech firms &mdash; minus a couple of exceptions like Padmasree Warrior of Cisco &mdash; you won't find any women CTOs. Look at the management teams of companies like Apple &mdash; not even one woman. It's the same with the VC firms &mdash; male dominated. You'll find some CFOs and HR heads, but women VCs are a rare commodity in venture capital. And with the recent venture bloodbath, the proportion of women in the VC numbers is declining further. It's no coincidence that only one of the 84 VCs on the 2009 TheFunded list of top VCs was a woman. ... Additionally, it is harder for women to obtain funding than for men. ... historically, women-led companies have received less than 9\% of venture capital investments; in 2007, the proportion of funded female CEOs dropped to 3\%."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>fysdt writes with this excerpt from TechCrunch : " An analysis of Dunn and Bradstreet data shows that of the 237,843 firms founded in 2004 , only 19 \ % had women as primary owners .
And only 3 \ % of tech firms and 1 \ % of high-tech firms ( as in Silicon Valley ) were founded by women .
Look at the executive teams of any of the Valley 's tech firms    minus a couple of exceptions like Padmasree Warrior of Cisco    you wo n't find any women CTOs .
Look at the management teams of companies like Apple    not even one woman .
It 's the same with the VC firms    male dominated .
You 'll find some CFOs and HR heads , but women VCs are a rare commodity in venture capital .
And with the recent venture bloodbath , the proportion of women in the VC numbers is declining further .
It 's no coincidence that only one of the 84 VCs on the 2009 TheFunded list of top VCs was a woman .
... Additionally , it is harder for women to obtain funding than for men .
... historically , women-led companies have received less than 9 \ % of venture capital investments ; in 2007 , the proportion of funded female CEOs dropped to 3 \ % .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fysdt writes with this excerpt from TechCrunch:
"An analysis of Dunn and Bradstreet data shows that of the 237,843 firms founded in 2004, only 19\% had women as primary owners.
And only 3\% of tech firms and 1\% of high-tech firms (as in Silicon Valley) were founded by women.
Look at the executive teams of any of the Valley's tech firms — minus a couple of exceptions like Padmasree Warrior of Cisco — you won't find any women CTOs.
Look at the management teams of companies like Apple — not even one woman.
It's the same with the VC firms — male dominated.
You'll find some CFOs and HR heads, but women VCs are a rare commodity in venture capital.
And with the recent venture bloodbath, the proportion of women in the VC numbers is declining further.
It's no coincidence that only one of the 84 VCs on the 2009 TheFunded list of top VCs was a woman.
... Additionally, it is harder for women to obtain funding than for men.
... historically, women-led companies have received less than 9\% of venture capital investments; in 2007, the proportion of funded female CEOs dropped to 3\%.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31054308</id>
	<title>Re:Women in technology?</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1265533740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> There are few men in primary or secondary education, nursing, or child care. Do we care?</p></div></blockquote><p>Nowadays a man in primary education or child care is often seen as tantamount to a pedophile, so apparently "we" approve of the lack.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are few men in primary or secondary education , nursing , or child care .
Do we care ? Nowadays a man in primary education or child care is often seen as tantamount to a pedophile , so apparently " we " approve of the lack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> There are few men in primary or secondary education, nursing, or child care.
Do we care?Nowadays a man in primary education or child care is often seen as tantamount to a pedophile, so apparently "we" approve of the lack.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31059214</id>
	<title>Re:it takes time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265627580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Silicon Valley tells itself it is a meritocracy, and sometimes it actually is one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Silicon Valley tells itself it is a meritocracy , and sometimes it actually is one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Silicon Valley tells itself it is a meritocracy, and sometimes it actually is one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31061316</id>
	<title>Re:Does it ever occur to anybody...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265649420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"And don't even think about pulling the racist/sexist card these days."</p></div><p>That little fucked up comment spells volumes about who you are. Unless you know what it's like to live and breathe life filled with little verbal stabs like that, don't you DARE belittle others by running your over-privileged mouth.</p><p>Oh, wait, this is the Internet. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't say that in someone's face in the real world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" And do n't even think about pulling the racist/sexist card these days .
" That little fucked up comment spells volumes about who you are .
Unless you know what it 's like to live and breathe life filled with little verbal stabs like that , do n't you DARE belittle others by running your over-privileged mouth.Oh , wait , this is the Internet .
I 'm pretty sure you would n't say that in someone 's face in the real world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"And don't even think about pulling the racist/sexist card these days.
"That little fucked up comment spells volumes about who you are.
Unless you know what it's like to live and breathe life filled with little verbal stabs like that, don't you DARE belittle others by running your over-privileged mouth.Oh, wait, this is the Internet.
I'm pretty sure you wouldn't say that in someone's face in the real world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31054210</id>
	<title>Math is fun</title>
	<author>WCguru42</author>
	<datestamp>1265575980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>firms founded in 2004, only 19\% had women as primary owners. And only 3\% of tech firms and 1\% of high-tech firms (as in Silicon Valley) were founded by women.</p><p>Additionally, it is harder for women to obtain funding than for men.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... historically, women-led companies have received less than 9\% of venture capital investments; in 2007</p></div><p>Let's play a little game I like to play called "math is fun".  in 2004 19\% of firms were founded by women.  This 19\% says nothing about \% of market but for fun let's say it's exactly 19\% (a generous assumption).  In 2007 women received less than 9\% of venture capital.  Let's say that 2007 was identical to 2004 and 19\% of new market was from women.  That means that you get 9\% VC / 19\% market for women and 91\% VC / 71\% market for men.  This might not be good but it's certainly not as bad as the summary paints it to be.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>firms founded in 2004 , only 19 \ % had women as primary owners .
And only 3 \ % of tech firms and 1 \ % of high-tech firms ( as in Silicon Valley ) were founded by women.Additionally , it is harder for women to obtain funding than for men .
... historically , women-led companies have received less than 9 \ % of venture capital investments ; in 2007Let 's play a little game I like to play called " math is fun " .
in 2004 19 \ % of firms were founded by women .
This 19 \ % says nothing about \ % of market but for fun let 's say it 's exactly 19 \ % ( a generous assumption ) .
In 2007 women received less than 9 \ % of venture capital .
Let 's say that 2007 was identical to 2004 and 19 \ % of new market was from women .
That means that you get 9 \ % VC / 19 \ % market for women and 91 \ % VC / 71 \ % market for men .
This might not be good but it 's certainly not as bad as the summary paints it to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>firms founded in 2004, only 19\% had women as primary owners.
And only 3\% of tech firms and 1\% of high-tech firms (as in Silicon Valley) were founded by women.Additionally, it is harder for women to obtain funding than for men.
... historically, women-led companies have received less than 9\% of venture capital investments; in 2007Let's play a little game I like to play called "math is fun".
in 2004 19\% of firms were founded by women.
This 19\% says nothing about \% of market but for fun let's say it's exactly 19\% (a generous assumption).
In 2007 women received less than 9\% of venture capital.
Let's say that 2007 was identical to 2004 and 19\% of new market was from women.
That means that you get 9\% VC / 19\% market for women and 91\% VC / 71\% market for men.
This might not be good but it's certainly not as bad as the summary paints it to be.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053240</id>
	<title>Crypto-paternalism</title>
	<author>MSTCrow5429</author>
	<datestamp>1265567280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Guess we'd better force women at gunpoint to enter careers they wouldn't voluntarily choose to enter.  After all, it's for their own good.  And it makes the weak spined males feel better about themselves.  Cuz that's what this is all about, isn't it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess we 'd better force women at gunpoint to enter careers they would n't voluntarily choose to enter .
After all , it 's for their own good .
And it makes the weak spined males feel better about themselves .
Cuz that 's what this is all about , is n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess we'd better force women at gunpoint to enter careers they wouldn't voluntarily choose to enter.
After all, it's for their own good.
And it makes the weak spined males feel better about themselves.
Cuz that's what this is all about, isn't it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053952</id>
	<title>Re:A view from 50,000 feet</title>
	<author>Timothy Brownawell</author>
	<datestamp>1265574060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If women, who as you recall make up half the population, can't get a fair shake at starting high-tech firms poised for fast growth and export-base sales. we're doing the economy a disservice.</p></div><p>But there's less competition for the other half, which happens to be the half responsible for the disparity. Maybe someone could come up with an anti-trust angle to this?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If women , who as you recall make up half the population , ca n't get a fair shake at starting high-tech firms poised for fast growth and export-base sales .
we 're doing the economy a disservice.But there 's less competition for the other half , which happens to be the half responsible for the disparity .
Maybe someone could come up with an anti-trust angle to this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If women, who as you recall make up half the population, can't get a fair shake at starting high-tech firms poised for fast growth and export-base sales.
we're doing the economy a disservice.But there's less competition for the other half, which happens to be the half responsible for the disparity.
Maybe someone could come up with an anti-trust angle to this?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31057160</id>
	<title>chicks just don't like high pay professions!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265556840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Out of curiosity, can any of the people claiming that women simply don't want high-power jobs name a single high pay/high prestige profession in which women would NOT be underrepresented?  somehow all the female-dominated professions are NOT high pay/high prestige.   how does it work exactly?  are women genetically predisposed NOT to choose high pay / high prestige professions, you think?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Out of curiosity , can any of the people claiming that women simply do n't want high-power jobs name a single high pay/high prestige profession in which women would NOT be underrepresented ?
somehow all the female-dominated professions are NOT high pay/high prestige .
how does it work exactly ?
are women genetically predisposed NOT to choose high pay / high prestige professions , you think ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Out of curiosity, can any of the people claiming that women simply don't want high-power jobs name a single high pay/high prestige profession in which women would NOT be underrepresented?
somehow all the female-dominated professions are NOT high pay/high prestige.
how does it work exactly?
are women genetically predisposed NOT to choose high pay / high prestige professions, you think?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053894</id>
	<title>Re:Women in technology?</title>
	<author>Timothy Brownawell</author>
	<datestamp>1265573520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So there are few women in technology. Sad. There are few men in primary or secondary education, nursing, or child care. Do we care?</p></div><p>Not that I've noticed, but we <a href="http://news.discovery.com/human/girls-math-anxiety-teachers.html" title="discovery.com">probably should</a> [discovery.com]. The gap in tech may well be partly caused by the gap in teaching.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So there are few women in technology .
Sad. There are few men in primary or secondary education , nursing , or child care .
Do we care ? Not that I 've noticed , but we probably should [ discovery.com ] .
The gap in tech may well be partly caused by the gap in teaching .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So there are few women in technology.
Sad. There are few men in primary or secondary education, nursing, or child care.
Do we care?Not that I've noticed, but we probably should [discovery.com].
The gap in tech may well be partly caused by the gap in teaching.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053066</id>
	<title>Women in technology?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265566020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So there are few women in technology. Sad. There are few men in primary or secondary education, nursing, or child care. Do we care?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So there are few women in technology .
Sad. There are few men in primary or secondary education , nursing , or child care .
Do we care ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So there are few women in technology.
Sad. There are few men in primary or secondary education, nursing, or child care.
Do we care?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053870</id>
	<title>Re:As expected</title>
	<author>stephanruby</author>
	<datestamp>1265573220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also, not everyone wants VC money. VCs want you to take over the World, or die trying. They also want the controlling stake in your business, or nothing at all. There is rarely any middle ground for them. </p><p>Now business owners and CEOs may re-mortgage their homes, liquidate their existing 401ks, get funding from friends and relatives, or do something else that's equally stupid to fund their venture, but for many of them -- the demands that the VCs make to them are just not worth it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , not everyone wants VC money .
VCs want you to take over the World , or die trying .
They also want the controlling stake in your business , or nothing at all .
There is rarely any middle ground for them .
Now business owners and CEOs may re-mortgage their homes , liquidate their existing 401ks , get funding from friends and relatives , or do something else that 's equally stupid to fund their venture , but for many of them -- the demands that the VCs make to them are just not worth it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, not everyone wants VC money.
VCs want you to take over the World, or die trying.
They also want the controlling stake in your business, or nothing at all.
There is rarely any middle ground for them.
Now business owners and CEOs may re-mortgage their homes, liquidate their existing 401ks, get funding from friends and relatives, or do something else that's equally stupid to fund their venture, but for many of them -- the demands that the VCs make to them are just not worth it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31054092</id>
	<title>Re:Which would be better: high-IQ women working or</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1265575020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suggest that this has pretty much already happened.  There are rather perverse incentives today for high-IQ women to put off children as long as possible.</p><p>This hasn't escaped popular notice.  As far back as Cyril M. Kornbluth's "The Marching Morons".  The recent film "Idiocracy".  The general theme of smarter people finding things to do other than having children has been with us for a long time.</p><p>It is probably something to worry about, and while the government is creating incentives for things, maybe they should be offering bigger tax breaks for children to some people.  Australia, for example pays "natives" $5000 for each child, not as a tax break but as cash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suggest that this has pretty much already happened .
There are rather perverse incentives today for high-IQ women to put off children as long as possible.This has n't escaped popular notice .
As far back as Cyril M. Kornbluth 's " The Marching Morons " .
The recent film " Idiocracy " .
The general theme of smarter people finding things to do other than having children has been with us for a long time.It is probably something to worry about , and while the government is creating incentives for things , maybe they should be offering bigger tax breaks for children to some people .
Australia , for example pays " natives " $ 5000 for each child , not as a tax break but as cash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suggest that this has pretty much already happened.
There are rather perverse incentives today for high-IQ women to put off children as long as possible.This hasn't escaped popular notice.
As far back as Cyril M. Kornbluth's "The Marching Morons".
The recent film "Idiocracy".
The general theme of smarter people finding things to do other than having children has been with us for a long time.It is probably something to worry about, and while the government is creating incentives for things, maybe they should be offering bigger tax breaks for children to some people.
Australia, for example pays "natives" $5000 for each child, not as a tax break but as cash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31066250</id>
	<title>It's "Dun and Bradstreet"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265628540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Dunn" is an old UK clothes shop, long deceased.</p><p>(yes, the article got it wrong too - obviously no editor would check the linked PDF, where it was correct)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Dunn " is an old UK clothes shop , long deceased .
( yes , the article got it wrong too - obviously no editor would check the linked PDF , where it was correct )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Dunn" is an old UK clothes shop, long deceased.
(yes, the article got it wrong too - obviously no editor would check the linked PDF, where it was correct)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053192</id>
	<title>Percentages</title>
	<author>data2</author>
	<datestamp>1265566920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The percentages near the end are somewhat misleading. If there are only 19\% of mainly women-owned businesses, who receive VC, they only get about half of that what men do. But I think especially the high-tech industry is the one getting all the VC, and there the percentage is, according to TFA, 1-3\%. So women would, if one assumed that most VC went into this industry, get more than men.<br>So, all in all, these numbers are, at best, misleading.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The percentages near the end are somewhat misleading .
If there are only 19 \ % of mainly women-owned businesses , who receive VC , they only get about half of that what men do .
But I think especially the high-tech industry is the one getting all the VC , and there the percentage is , according to TFA , 1-3 \ % .
So women would , if one assumed that most VC went into this industry , get more than men.So , all in all , these numbers are , at best , misleading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The percentages near the end are somewhat misleading.
If there are only 19\% of mainly women-owned businesses, who receive VC, they only get about half of that what men do.
But I think especially the high-tech industry is the one getting all the VC, and there the percentage is, according to TFA, 1-3\%.
So women would, if one assumed that most VC went into this industry, get more than men.So, all in all, these numbers are, at best, misleading.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31065420</id>
	<title>Re:A view from 50,000 feet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265625240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I vaguely recall something similar about the banks discriminating when giving out mortgages... then the lending rules getting eased off and heralded as the boost that the economy being sucked dry by war expenses needed... and then something about a housing crash because so many people were able to get financing.... yes... yes...</p><p>Sorry about the cynicism, but if female workers were indeed just as valuable as male workers to the enterpreneurs, wouldn't the market favour companies with more female workers? Also, there are studies that show that unmarried women who continued to work past the age of 40 in fact earned on average 25\% \_more\_ than their male counterparts.</p><p>I am not trying to negate or discredit anyone's human rights, or say that the ideals of equality are unimportant. In fact, there is a tremendous amount of unpaid household work that is being done by women that is not being recognized. All I'm saying is that there are interactions and forces at work other and in addition to discrimination or genger bias, and it is not likely that furthering the anti-gener-bias efforts will lead to much of a change in the actual situation. If you truly mean it when you say that we need enterpreneurs and enterpreneurship, I'd say let's get on with this and stop interfering with free market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I vaguely recall something similar about the banks discriminating when giving out mortgages... then the lending rules getting eased off and heralded as the boost that the economy being sucked dry by war expenses needed... and then something about a housing crash because so many people were able to get financing.... yes... yes...Sorry about the cynicism , but if female workers were indeed just as valuable as male workers to the enterpreneurs , would n't the market favour companies with more female workers ?
Also , there are studies that show that unmarried women who continued to work past the age of 40 in fact earned on average 25 \ % \ _more \ _ than their male counterparts.I am not trying to negate or discredit anyone 's human rights , or say that the ideals of equality are unimportant .
In fact , there is a tremendous amount of unpaid household work that is being done by women that is not being recognized .
All I 'm saying is that there are interactions and forces at work other and in addition to discrimination or genger bias , and it is not likely that furthering the anti-gener-bias efforts will lead to much of a change in the actual situation .
If you truly mean it when you say that we need enterpreneurs and enterpreneurship , I 'd say let 's get on with this and stop interfering with free market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I vaguely recall something similar about the banks discriminating when giving out mortgages... then the lending rules getting eased off and heralded as the boost that the economy being sucked dry by war expenses needed... and then something about a housing crash because so many people were able to get financing.... yes... yes...Sorry about the cynicism, but if female workers were indeed just as valuable as male workers to the enterpreneurs, wouldn't the market favour companies with more female workers?
Also, there are studies that show that unmarried women who continued to work past the age of 40 in fact earned on average 25\% \_more\_ than their male counterparts.I am not trying to negate or discredit anyone's human rights, or say that the ideals of equality are unimportant.
In fact, there is a tremendous amount of unpaid household work that is being done by women that is not being recognized.
All I'm saying is that there are interactions and forces at work other and in addition to discrimination or genger bias, and it is not likely that furthering the anti-gener-bias efforts will lead to much of a change in the actual situation.
If you truly mean it when you say that we need enterpreneurs and enterpreneurship, I'd say let's get on with this and stop interfering with free market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31057564</id>
	<title>Re:Does it ever occur to anybody...</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1265560680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think in the upper echelons of society even the average joes racism and sexism is MOSTLY gone. Though average joes still often fear/hate brown people (ask any brown dude if they've had experiences). In the shitholes of america though it is going strong. In ghettos, poor houses and uneducated hick towns you'd have to be a total idiot to not see rampant sexism and racism. And it is still very damaging.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think in the upper echelons of society even the average joes racism and sexism is MOSTLY gone .
Though average joes still often fear/hate brown people ( ask any brown dude if they 've had experiences ) .
In the shitholes of america though it is going strong .
In ghettos , poor houses and uneducated hick towns you 'd have to be a total idiot to not see rampant sexism and racism .
And it is still very damaging .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think in the upper echelons of society even the average joes racism and sexism is MOSTLY gone.
Though average joes still often fear/hate brown people (ask any brown dude if they've had experiences).
In the shitholes of america though it is going strong.
In ghettos, poor houses and uneducated hick towns you'd have to be a total idiot to not see rampant sexism and racism.
And it is still very damaging.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31057786</id>
	<title>Re:Does it ever occur to anybody...</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1265562780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In my university (for CS) there were a decent number of girls in my classes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... about 30\%. Of those I would say about 15\% of them were merely interested in nerd guys. 15\% just there for the money. 30\% failed. The rest (40\%) were pretty nerdy and saw cs as a possible fit.<br> <br>I saw not a single, literally not one girl that I would consider a hardcore nerd the whole time. There were no girls that were coding their own projects til 3am. No girls grouping up and thinking of great company ideas. No girls bitching about google's privacy policies. No girls commonly on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.. None working on open source things. None running their own servers at home, none running linux.<br> <br>There seems to be a barrier at the level of obsession. Driven females seem rare compared to men as well (not super rare or anything but less likely). And to form a CS company you need to be obsessed, driven, nerdy and have peers to take with you. Peers are rare at this point because most of the girls have dropped like flies. And the only people left are nerd guys that women have spent years attempting to crush to death. So the number of them that can form perfectly healthy friendships with you isn't 100\% either.<br> <br>If you want to drakes equation this go ahead.<br>\% women that go to CS<br>
(40\%) of women that are nerds in CS<br>
(80\%) of women that stay in the field<br>
(5\%) of those are obsessed<br>
(15\%) of those are driven<br>
(25\%) of the survivors have a good peer group or enough drive/obsession to make it to the top.<br> <br> Yep... kinda sucks. But I must say that if there is discrimination hurting a woman's job chances in the field of CS then it is more the stereotyped thinking in the women themselves than that in the men's head. Many women believe it isn't feminine to be in CS or w/e other sexist reason, so they don't. Guys are generally happy to have more girls around. If they are as qualified as their competitors it would be rare for them to not have an equal shot at a job.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In my university ( for CS ) there were a decent number of girls in my classes ... about 30 \ % .
Of those I would say about 15 \ % of them were merely interested in nerd guys .
15 \ % just there for the money .
30 \ % failed .
The rest ( 40 \ % ) were pretty nerdy and saw cs as a possible fit .
I saw not a single , literally not one girl that I would consider a hardcore nerd the whole time .
There were no girls that were coding their own projects til 3am .
No girls grouping up and thinking of great company ideas .
No girls bitching about google 's privacy policies .
No girls commonly on /.. None working on open source things .
None running their own servers at home , none running linux .
There seems to be a barrier at the level of obsession .
Driven females seem rare compared to men as well ( not super rare or anything but less likely ) .
And to form a CS company you need to be obsessed , driven , nerdy and have peers to take with you .
Peers are rare at this point because most of the girls have dropped like flies .
And the only people left are nerd guys that women have spent years attempting to crush to death .
So the number of them that can form perfectly healthy friendships with you is n't 100 \ % either .
If you want to drakes equation this go ahead. \ % women that go to CS ( 40 \ % ) of women that are nerds in CS ( 80 \ % ) of women that stay in the field ( 5 \ % ) of those are obsessed ( 15 \ % ) of those are driven ( 25 \ % ) of the survivors have a good peer group or enough drive/obsession to make it to the top .
Yep... kinda sucks .
But I must say that if there is discrimination hurting a woman 's job chances in the field of CS then it is more the stereotyped thinking in the women themselves than that in the men 's head .
Many women believe it is n't feminine to be in CS or w/e other sexist reason , so they do n't .
Guys are generally happy to have more girls around .
If they are as qualified as their competitors it would be rare for them to not have an equal shot at a job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my university (for CS) there were a decent number of girls in my classes ... about 30\%.
Of those I would say about 15\% of them were merely interested in nerd guys.
15\% just there for the money.
30\% failed.
The rest (40\%) were pretty nerdy and saw cs as a possible fit.
I saw not a single, literally not one girl that I would consider a hardcore nerd the whole time.
There were no girls that were coding their own projects til 3am.
No girls grouping up and thinking of great company ideas.
No girls bitching about google's privacy policies.
No girls commonly on /.. None working on open source things.
None running their own servers at home, none running linux.
There seems to be a barrier at the level of obsession.
Driven females seem rare compared to men as well (not super rare or anything but less likely).
And to form a CS company you need to be obsessed, driven, nerdy and have peers to take with you.
Peers are rare at this point because most of the girls have dropped like flies.
And the only people left are nerd guys that women have spent years attempting to crush to death.
So the number of them that can form perfectly healthy friendships with you isn't 100\% either.
If you want to drakes equation this go ahead.\% women that go to CS
(40\%) of women that are nerds in CS
(80\%) of women that stay in the field
(5\%) of those are obsessed
(15\%) of those are driven
(25\%) of the survivors have a good peer group or enough drive/obsession to make it to the top.
Yep... kinda sucks.
But I must say that if there is discrimination hurting a woman's job chances in the field of CS then it is more the stereotyped thinking in the women themselves than that in the men's head.
Many women believe it isn't feminine to be in CS or w/e other sexist reason, so they don't.
Guys are generally happy to have more girls around.
If they are as qualified as their competitors it would be rare for them to not have an equal shot at a job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31055204</id>
	<title>A Room of One's Own</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265539740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thank you.
<br>
<br>
Thank you so very much for discussing amongst yourselves whether I am or am not being held at a disadvantage, oppressed by society, taken/taking advantage by/of the system.  Thanks for telling me what I want, how I want it, and when I should have it.  I didn't know that the effect of my extra X chromosome was so far reaching that you think you can completely define me, even down to my potential interests.  I really would not have known all this about myself if it weren't for this marvelous and absolutely enlightening conversation you boys are having over here.
<br>
<br>
I understand very well the problems inherent in society today.  I've seen the glass ceilings, I've experienced the derision of being a woman in a male-dominated field.  Yes it is a problem, yes we have made progress, yes it is complicated and there is no one answer, no simple solution, and perhaps no right solution either.  On some level, I appreciate that this conversation is happening at all.
<br>
<br>
But aside from the larger issue of dealing with women as a collective, I am also an individual.  Keep that in mind.  You might not have intended to sound condescending, but a lot of you have.  You might protest that you have a wife and daughters, female co-workers, friends, etc, so you know the female mind.  That is not true.  It means you know your wife, your daughter, your friend and from there you have extrapolated certain things about women.  You have read articles about gender issues, maybe you study the gender divide, and from that basis, you've written your opinion.  I understand that in a discussion as broad as this one, it's impossible to avoid certain stereotypes.
<br>
<br>
Still, take a step back.  Because this collective you're speculating about is composed of individuals who, despite the fact that they share an extra X, are as diverse in their personalities as men.
<br>
<br>
Don't simplify the issue, and don't needlessly complicate it.  Acknowledge that society and biology play a role in shaping our thoughts and our lives, but they do not completely control it.
<br>
<br>
Jane Austen wrote in <i>Pride &amp; Prejudice</i>: "Do not consider me now as an elegant female, intending to plague you, but as a rational creature, speaking truth from her heart."
<br>
<br>
I ask the same of you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you .
Thank you so very much for discussing amongst yourselves whether I am or am not being held at a disadvantage , oppressed by society , taken/taking advantage by/of the system .
Thanks for telling me what I want , how I want it , and when I should have it .
I did n't know that the effect of my extra X chromosome was so far reaching that you think you can completely define me , even down to my potential interests .
I really would not have known all this about myself if it were n't for this marvelous and absolutely enlightening conversation you boys are having over here .
I understand very well the problems inherent in society today .
I 've seen the glass ceilings , I 've experienced the derision of being a woman in a male-dominated field .
Yes it is a problem , yes we have made progress , yes it is complicated and there is no one answer , no simple solution , and perhaps no right solution either .
On some level , I appreciate that this conversation is happening at all .
But aside from the larger issue of dealing with women as a collective , I am also an individual .
Keep that in mind .
You might not have intended to sound condescending , but a lot of you have .
You might protest that you have a wife and daughters , female co-workers , friends , etc , so you know the female mind .
That is not true .
It means you know your wife , your daughter , your friend and from there you have extrapolated certain things about women .
You have read articles about gender issues , maybe you study the gender divide , and from that basis , you 've written your opinion .
I understand that in a discussion as broad as this one , it 's impossible to avoid certain stereotypes .
Still , take a step back .
Because this collective you 're speculating about is composed of individuals who , despite the fact that they share an extra X , are as diverse in their personalities as men .
Do n't simplify the issue , and do n't needlessly complicate it .
Acknowledge that society and biology play a role in shaping our thoughts and our lives , but they do not completely control it .
Jane Austen wrote in Pride &amp; Prejudice : " Do not consider me now as an elegant female , intending to plague you , but as a rational creature , speaking truth from her heart .
" I ask the same of you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you.
Thank you so very much for discussing amongst yourselves whether I am or am not being held at a disadvantage, oppressed by society, taken/taking advantage by/of the system.
Thanks for telling me what I want, how I want it, and when I should have it.
I didn't know that the effect of my extra X chromosome was so far reaching that you think you can completely define me, even down to my potential interests.
I really would not have known all this about myself if it weren't for this marvelous and absolutely enlightening conversation you boys are having over here.
I understand very well the problems inherent in society today.
I've seen the glass ceilings, I've experienced the derision of being a woman in a male-dominated field.
Yes it is a problem, yes we have made progress, yes it is complicated and there is no one answer, no simple solution, and perhaps no right solution either.
On some level, I appreciate that this conversation is happening at all.
But aside from the larger issue of dealing with women as a collective, I am also an individual.
Keep that in mind.
You might not have intended to sound condescending, but a lot of you have.
You might protest that you have a wife and daughters, female co-workers, friends, etc, so you know the female mind.
That is not true.
It means you know your wife, your daughter, your friend and from there you have extrapolated certain things about women.
You have read articles about gender issues, maybe you study the gender divide, and from that basis, you've written your opinion.
I understand that in a discussion as broad as this one, it's impossible to avoid certain stereotypes.
Still, take a step back.
Because this collective you're speculating about is composed of individuals who, despite the fact that they share an extra X, are as diverse in their personalities as men.
Don't simplify the issue, and don't needlessly complicate it.
Acknowledge that society and biology play a role in shaping our thoughts and our lives, but they do not completely control it.
Jane Austen wrote in Pride &amp; Prejudice: "Do not consider me now as an elegant female, intending to plague you, but as a rational creature, speaking truth from her heart.
"


I ask the same of you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053028</id>
	<title>Does it ever occur to anybody...</title>
	<author>Third Position</author>
	<datestamp>1265565720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...that if women aren't highly represented in these endeavors, it might be a sign that <i>women just aren't interested in the same damn things that men are</i>?!</p><p>Sheesh!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...that if women are n't highly represented in these endeavors , it might be a sign that women just are n't interested in the same damn things that men are ?
! Sheesh !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...that if women aren't highly represented in these endeavors, it might be a sign that women just aren't interested in the same damn things that men are?
!Sheesh!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31054476</id>
	<title>What a load</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1265535120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean that is like saying because the only female leader of britain turned out to be Margaret "Mad Cow" Tatcher... wait a minute... you might be on to something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean that is like saying because the only female leader of britain turned out to be Margaret " Mad Cow " Tatcher... wait a minute... you might be on to something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean that is like saying because the only female leader of britain turned out to be Margaret "Mad Cow" Tatcher... wait a minute... you might be on to something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053728</id>
	<title>Re:Crypto-paternalism</title>
	<author>dsoltesz</author>
	<datestamp>1265571660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As noted earlier, "You can lead a horse to water..." I don't know that the problem is discrimination, but perhaps more related to the question: Why don't girls play video games? Is it upbringing? Is it society? Is it education? Is technology presenting itself in a way that is simply not attractive to women? From my experience, women earn cred in the tech world the same way men do, and when they've earned it, they're treated equally. Techies are usually so eager to have anyone who understands what they do and shares their love for it, they aren't about to turn anyone away over something silly like gender, skin color, or religion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As noted earlier , " You can lead a horse to water... " I do n't know that the problem is discrimination , but perhaps more related to the question : Why do n't girls play video games ?
Is it upbringing ?
Is it society ?
Is it education ?
Is technology presenting itself in a way that is simply not attractive to women ?
From my experience , women earn cred in the tech world the same way men do , and when they 've earned it , they 're treated equally .
Techies are usually so eager to have anyone who understands what they do and shares their love for it , they are n't about to turn anyone away over something silly like gender , skin color , or religion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As noted earlier, "You can lead a horse to water..." I don't know that the problem is discrimination, but perhaps more related to the question: Why don't girls play video games?
Is it upbringing?
Is it society?
Is it education?
Is technology presenting itself in a way that is simply not attractive to women?
From my experience, women earn cred in the tech world the same way men do, and when they've earned it, they're treated equally.
Techies are usually so eager to have anyone who understands what they do and shares their love for it, they aren't about to turn anyone away over something silly like gender, skin color, or religion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31055290</id>
	<title>women are sane</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265540280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It takes balls (not just anatomical: read zero appreciation of risk/reward) to start a business. A person with similar capability can probably make a better living (risk-adjusted). Women understand this. It is also the reason you do not find them in science/engg academia. A person with the required intellectual ability can make a better living outside academia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It takes balls ( not just anatomical : read zero appreciation of risk/reward ) to start a business .
A person with similar capability can probably make a better living ( risk-adjusted ) .
Women understand this .
It is also the reason you do not find them in science/engg academia .
A person with the required intellectual ability can make a better living outside academia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It takes balls (not just anatomical: read zero appreciation of risk/reward) to start a business.
A person with similar capability can probably make a better living (risk-adjusted).
Women understand this.
It is also the reason you do not find them in science/engg academia.
A person with the required intellectual ability can make a better living outside academia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053514</id>
	<title>Re:As expected</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265569500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clearly, efforts to expand sociopathy rates amongst women to be equal to those of men have been failed and must be redoubled. If not we risk gender inequality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly , efforts to expand sociopathy rates amongst women to be equal to those of men have been failed and must be redoubled .
If not we risk gender inequality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly, efforts to expand sociopathy rates amongst women to be equal to those of men have been failed and must be redoubled.
If not we risk gender inequality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053004</id>
	<title>Why should I care?</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1265565600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a man, I don't have venture capital, so I don't care.  If women want more venture capital, its not my issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a man , I do n't have venture capital , so I do n't care .
If women want more venture capital , its not my issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a man, I don't have venture capital, so I don't care.
If women want more venture capital, its not my issue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053218</id>
	<title>Its all about the benjamins</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265567100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously its all about the money, nothing else.</p><p>This isn't some high-ground moral debate, its about moolah, show me the money.</p><p>Doubt me?  Find the big stories about the gender gap in nursing, therapy, primary and secondary education (though strikingly, once you get to higher education then all of a sudden the gender gap IS an issue... why there?  why not for primary and secondary?), for mechanics, for ditch diggers.  There's a HUGE gender gap in every one of those fields, 90\%+ male or female dominated in each, and you hear nothing about it.</p><p>Now bring in: finance, (medical) doctors, venture capital, CEOs, math, science, technology (anything with $$$), and its suddenly important.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously its all about the money , nothing else.This is n't some high-ground moral debate , its about moolah , show me the money.Doubt me ?
Find the big stories about the gender gap in nursing , therapy , primary and secondary education ( though strikingly , once you get to higher education then all of a sudden the gender gap IS an issue... why there ?
why not for primary and secondary ?
) , for mechanics , for ditch diggers .
There 's a HUGE gender gap in every one of those fields , 90 \ % + male or female dominated in each , and you hear nothing about it.Now bring in : finance , ( medical ) doctors , venture capital , CEOs , math , science , technology ( anything with $ $ $ ) , and its suddenly important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously its all about the money, nothing else.This isn't some high-ground moral debate, its about moolah, show me the money.Doubt me?
Find the big stories about the gender gap in nursing, therapy, primary and secondary education (though strikingly, once you get to higher education then all of a sudden the gender gap IS an issue... why there?
why not for primary and secondary?
), for mechanics, for ditch diggers.
There's a HUGE gender gap in every one of those fields, 90\%+ male or female dominated in each, and you hear nothing about it.Now bring in: finance, (medical) doctors, venture capital, CEOs, math, science, technology (anything with $$$), and its suddenly important.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31065800</id>
	<title>Re:A view from 50,000 feet</title>
	<author>mrosgood</author>
	<datestamp>1265626560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please tell us when you publish your thesis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please tell us when you publish your thesis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please tell us when you publish your thesis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053316</id>
	<title>Re:A view from 50,000 feet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265567940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When considering loaning someone money, one must consider things the person is likely to do. Given that one cannot know the person in every detail, one uses the common behaviors of others similar to that person. Thus, when we, a Martian loan agency, are evaluating Earthlings for loans, we consider the behavior of other Earthlings, even though this particular specimen might not behave in the same way. Other Martian loan agencies have tried ignoring this, but they went under because their loans weren't as sound. Yet another planet-ist Martian loan agency tried rejecting all Earthlings for loans, but they too went under, because some Earthlings were worth loaning to. We get criticism for being discriminatory of Earthlings, since we do consider them a greater risk than Martians, based on past performance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When considering loaning someone money , one must consider things the person is likely to do .
Given that one can not know the person in every detail , one uses the common behaviors of others similar to that person .
Thus , when we , a Martian loan agency , are evaluating Earthlings for loans , we consider the behavior of other Earthlings , even though this particular specimen might not behave in the same way .
Other Martian loan agencies have tried ignoring this , but they went under because their loans were n't as sound .
Yet another planet-ist Martian loan agency tried rejecting all Earthlings for loans , but they too went under , because some Earthlings were worth loaning to .
We get criticism for being discriminatory of Earthlings , since we do consider them a greater risk than Martians , based on past performance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When considering loaning someone money, one must consider things the person is likely to do.
Given that one cannot know the person in every detail, one uses the common behaviors of others similar to that person.
Thus, when we, a Martian loan agency, are evaluating Earthlings for loans, we consider the behavior of other Earthlings, even though this particular specimen might not behave in the same way.
Other Martian loan agencies have tried ignoring this, but they went under because their loans weren't as sound.
Yet another planet-ist Martian loan agency tried rejecting all Earthlings for loans, but they too went under, because some Earthlings were worth loaning to.
We get criticism for being discriminatory of Earthlings, since we do consider them a greater risk than Martians, based on past performance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053074</id>
	<title>Apple</title>
	<author>Nerdfest</author>
	<datestamp>1265566080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>management teams of companies like Apple &mdash; not even one woman.</p> </div><p>Well, it <i>is</i> Apple<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... there's no *women*, but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br> <br>More seriously, it's interesting, but has little bearing on anything. Anyone done any studies on the lack (or excess) of LGBT in tech or venture capital?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>management teams of companies like Apple    not even one woman .
Well , it is Apple ... there 's no * women * , but ... More seriously , it 's interesting , but has little bearing on anything .
Anyone done any studies on the lack ( or excess ) of LGBT in tech or venture capital ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>management teams of companies like Apple — not even one woman.
Well, it is Apple ... there's no *women*, but ... More seriously, it's interesting, but has little bearing on anything.
Anyone done any studies on the lack (or excess) of LGBT in tech or venture capital?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31059552</id>
	<title>Enough of this BS</title>
	<author>blue-slonopotam</author>
	<datestamp>1265633520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Back in 200x
1. I stumbled upon a "WOMEN ONLY" position in CS department at some Canadian university. MEN need not apply.
2. There was a study of director-level positions pay. Women receive about 10\% more than man for the same work.

According to my personal experience, most women are smart and selfish. They perform cost-benefit analysis, and if it is not worth, they do not pursue it.
I am talking about Software Engineering positions. Recent study has shown that student switch from CS to other majors as soon as they understand what's ahead. It's not worth it, and won't go there, unless you are an altruist.

Sure, if you give a competitive advantage for one half of the population over another, they will use it. The question is why would you do it.

So, the lenders must relax their requirements for women, than for men ? Is it what this article is about ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in 200x 1 .
I stumbled upon a " WOMEN ONLY " position in CS department at some Canadian university .
MEN need not apply .
2. There was a study of director-level positions pay .
Women receive about 10 \ % more than man for the same work .
According to my personal experience , most women are smart and selfish .
They perform cost-benefit analysis , and if it is not worth , they do not pursue it .
I am talking about Software Engineering positions .
Recent study has shown that student switch from CS to other majors as soon as they understand what 's ahead .
It 's not worth it , and wo n't go there , unless you are an altruist .
Sure , if you give a competitive advantage for one half of the population over another , they will use it .
The question is why would you do it .
So , the lenders must relax their requirements for women , than for men ?
Is it what this article is about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in 200x
1.
I stumbled upon a "WOMEN ONLY" position in CS department at some Canadian university.
MEN need not apply.
2. There was a study of director-level positions pay.
Women receive about 10\% more than man for the same work.
According to my personal experience, most women are smart and selfish.
They perform cost-benefit analysis, and if it is not worth, they do not pursue it.
I am talking about Software Engineering positions.
Recent study has shown that student switch from CS to other majors as soon as they understand what's ahead.
It's not worth it, and won't go there, unless you are an altruist.
Sure, if you give a competitive advantage for one half of the population over another, they will use it.
The question is why would you do it.
So, the lenders must relax their requirements for women, than for men ?
Is it what this article is about ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053452</id>
	<title>funding</title>
	<author>zogger</author>
	<datestamp>1265568960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe harder for women to get private funding, but much easier getting government loans, either small biz or schooling, etc.</p><p>Besides, VC stuff isn't that great, you are beholden to people who just want a huge return back, and swiftly. They won't ever care about the tech or doing a good job or being in it for the long haul.</p><p>You'd think this would be learned by now. Want a company, or to start your own business, expand on some ideas? That's fine! But you don't have to go this VC route either. Do what it takes to stay private and self funded some how. If this means you stay small for a long time..at least you are still working and don't have to put up with PHBs, dumb VC investors, dumber generic stockholders, etc.</p><p>
&nbsp; Small does not necessarily translate into bad, and giant doesn't necessarily translate into good either, despite what those pirates believe and are taught in the biz schools.</p><p>There's more to life than some nebulous goal of being a big biz tycoon. We already have quite enough of those globalist turkeys running around, we don't need any more of them..we need less of them.</p><p>And this "bigger is always better" corporate mindset is wrecking the economy as a whole, not making it better. All these huge companies are just eating the middle class up and spitting them out, leaving them stuck with huge debts, personal and governmental, and shifting the wealth of the nation into fewer and fewer hands, where they don't care after that point, they'll go elsewhere with that stripped wealth and just let everyone else rot.</p><p>
&nbsp; It's a vicious circle where they have to kowtow to the wall street pirates to achieve "growth" in their business, which has de evolved into just building up, acquiring with takeovers, stripping assets to achieve this growth, selling off the good stuff cheap and fast, shuffling off the jobs as fast as possible, another way they get short term profits, then bailing once your company and your idea has been destroyed with their golden parachutes they vote themselves to take. Lather, rinse, repeat, with co-opting our government in the meantime, to let them keep getting away with that.</p><p><a href="http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/19658" title="canadafreepress.com" rel="nofollow">http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/19658</a> [canadafreepress.com]</p><p>That's what you want, to be part of that system?</p><p>So..stay away from those guys. Do it yourself, stay small and integrated, have a better life, less hassles and headaches and bogusness, don't be part of that corrupt and morally bankrupt system if you can avoid it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe harder for women to get private funding , but much easier getting government loans , either small biz or schooling , etc.Besides , VC stuff is n't that great , you are beholden to people who just want a huge return back , and swiftly .
They wo n't ever care about the tech or doing a good job or being in it for the long haul.You 'd think this would be learned by now .
Want a company , or to start your own business , expand on some ideas ?
That 's fine !
But you do n't have to go this VC route either .
Do what it takes to stay private and self funded some how .
If this means you stay small for a long time..at least you are still working and do n't have to put up with PHBs , dumb VC investors , dumber generic stockholders , etc .
  Small does not necessarily translate into bad , and giant does n't necessarily translate into good either , despite what those pirates believe and are taught in the biz schools.There 's more to life than some nebulous goal of being a big biz tycoon .
We already have quite enough of those globalist turkeys running around , we do n't need any more of them..we need less of them.And this " bigger is always better " corporate mindset is wrecking the economy as a whole , not making it better .
All these huge companies are just eating the middle class up and spitting them out , leaving them stuck with huge debts , personal and governmental , and shifting the wealth of the nation into fewer and fewer hands , where they do n't care after that point , they 'll go elsewhere with that stripped wealth and just let everyone else rot .
  It 's a vicious circle where they have to kowtow to the wall street pirates to achieve " growth " in their business , which has de evolved into just building up , acquiring with takeovers , stripping assets to achieve this growth , selling off the good stuff cheap and fast , shuffling off the jobs as fast as possible , another way they get short term profits , then bailing once your company and your idea has been destroyed with their golden parachutes they vote themselves to take .
Lather , rinse , repeat , with co-opting our government in the meantime , to let them keep getting away with that.http : //canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/19658 [ canadafreepress.com ] That 's what you want , to be part of that system ? So..stay away from those guys .
Do it yourself , stay small and integrated , have a better life , less hassles and headaches and bogusness , do n't be part of that corrupt and morally bankrupt system if you can avoid it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe harder for women to get private funding, but much easier getting government loans, either small biz or schooling, etc.Besides, VC stuff isn't that great, you are beholden to people who just want a huge return back, and swiftly.
They won't ever care about the tech or doing a good job or being in it for the long haul.You'd think this would be learned by now.
Want a company, or to start your own business, expand on some ideas?
That's fine!
But you don't have to go this VC route either.
Do what it takes to stay private and self funded some how.
If this means you stay small for a long time..at least you are still working and don't have to put up with PHBs, dumb VC investors, dumber generic stockholders, etc.
  Small does not necessarily translate into bad, and giant doesn't necessarily translate into good either, despite what those pirates believe and are taught in the biz schools.There's more to life than some nebulous goal of being a big biz tycoon.
We already have quite enough of those globalist turkeys running around, we don't need any more of them..we need less of them.And this "bigger is always better" corporate mindset is wrecking the economy as a whole, not making it better.
All these huge companies are just eating the middle class up and spitting them out, leaving them stuck with huge debts, personal and governmental, and shifting the wealth of the nation into fewer and fewer hands, where they don't care after that point, they'll go elsewhere with that stripped wealth and just let everyone else rot.
  It's a vicious circle where they have to kowtow to the wall street pirates to achieve "growth" in their business, which has de evolved into just building up, acquiring with takeovers, stripping assets to achieve this growth, selling off the good stuff cheap and fast, shuffling off the jobs as fast as possible, another way they get short term profits, then bailing once your company and your idea has been destroyed with their golden parachutes they vote themselves to take.
Lather, rinse, repeat, with co-opting our government in the meantime, to let them keep getting away with that.http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/19658 [canadafreepress.com]That's what you want, to be part of that system?So..stay away from those guys.
Do it yourself, stay small and integrated, have a better life, less hassles and headaches and bogusness, don't be part of that corrupt and morally bankrupt system if you can avoid it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053064</id>
	<title>Conspiracy!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265566020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;"of the 237,843 firms founded in 2004, only 19\% had women as primary owners. And only 3\% of tech firms and 1\% of high-tech firms were founded by women."</p><p>Yes, we have discovered a massive conspiracy by society to prevent women from founding new companies.  New evidence shows States refuse to give business licenses to women, especially if it is apparent it will be a high-tech company.  News at 11....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; " of the 237,843 firms founded in 2004 , only 19 \ % had women as primary owners .
And only 3 \ % of tech firms and 1 \ % of high-tech firms were founded by women .
" Yes , we have discovered a massive conspiracy by society to prevent women from founding new companies .
New evidence shows States refuse to give business licenses to women , especially if it is apparent it will be a high-tech company .
News at 11... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;"of the 237,843 firms founded in 2004, only 19\% had women as primary owners.
And only 3\% of tech firms and 1\% of high-tech firms were founded by women.
"Yes, we have discovered a massive conspiracy by society to prevent women from founding new companies.
New evidence shows States refuse to give business licenses to women, especially if it is apparent it will be a high-tech company.
News at 11....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31054178</id>
	<title>Re:it takes time</title>
	<author>140Mandak262Jamuna</author>
	<datestamp>1265575740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, Men outnumber women 4 to 1 or 5 to 1 in prison population too! Simple scientific fact is that there is more variation among men than in women. You will find more men at the bottom end of stupidity scale as well as at the top of intelligence scale. More men on the shorter side of the population as well as taller segment of the population. More men in risky all-or-nothing ventures as well as in safe-as-Fort-Knox job preferring bean counters. <p>

VC, company forming etc are off the well beaten path. No wonder there are more women than men there. Find something that is the polar opposite of founding companies and seeking venture capital, (Japanese company man?) you will find more men there as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , Men outnumber women 4 to 1 or 5 to 1 in prison population too !
Simple scientific fact is that there is more variation among men than in women .
You will find more men at the bottom end of stupidity scale as well as at the top of intelligence scale .
More men on the shorter side of the population as well as taller segment of the population .
More men in risky all-or-nothing ventures as well as in safe-as-Fort-Knox job preferring bean counters .
VC , company forming etc are off the well beaten path .
No wonder there are more women than men there .
Find something that is the polar opposite of founding companies and seeking venture capital , ( Japanese company man ?
) you will find more men there as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, Men outnumber women 4 to 1 or 5 to 1 in prison population too!
Simple scientific fact is that there is more variation among men than in women.
You will find more men at the bottom end of stupidity scale as well as at the top of intelligence scale.
More men on the shorter side of the population as well as taller segment of the population.
More men in risky all-or-nothing ventures as well as in safe-as-Fort-Knox job preferring bean counters.
VC, company forming etc are off the well beaten path.
No wonder there are more women than men there.
Find something that is the polar opposite of founding companies and seeking venture capital, (Japanese company man?
) you will find more men there as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053054</id>
	<title>Testosterone</title>
	<author>psnyder</author>
	<datestamp>1265565960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've sometimes wondered about levels of testosterone and their link with "the desire to lead".<br> <br>
Women and men are certainly mentally as capable as each other, but I wonder if there's a chemically induced motivation difference.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've sometimes wondered about levels of testosterone and their link with " the desire to lead " .
Women and men are certainly mentally as capable as each other , but I wonder if there 's a chemically induced motivation difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've sometimes wondered about levels of testosterone and their link with "the desire to lead".
Women and men are certainly mentally as capable as each other, but I wonder if there's a chemically induced motivation difference.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053112</id>
	<title>The Reason</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265566500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real reason for a gender gap: women are not capable, or not interested, or a combination of both.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real reason for a gender gap : women are not capable , or not interested , or a combination of both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real reason for a gender gap: women are not capable, or not interested, or a combination of both.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053162</id>
	<title>Correlation and Causation ftw!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265566800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would just like to chime in and say that correlation is not causation.</p><p>I think that way too often "gender gap" issues are misconstrued. Bad statistics are used to push worse agendas.</p><p>So let's assume that the numbers presented above are factual, properly represented statistics that accurately reflect the reality of the world. So what? What does that even mean?</p><p>I'm guessing there are fewer male nurses than female nurses. Oh noes!!!1! Smells like discrimination to me!</p><p>Or maybe, and just maybe, men and women have different priorities and value systems and therefore make different choices in their lives. Maybe working 60+ hour weeks for a shaky startup in a high stress environment is less appealing to most women than it is to most men. I don't know. And you probably don't either.</p><p>Hmmm...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would just like to chime in and say that correlation is not causation.I think that way too often " gender gap " issues are misconstrued .
Bad statistics are used to push worse agendas.So let 's assume that the numbers presented above are factual , properly represented statistics that accurately reflect the reality of the world .
So what ?
What does that even mean ? I 'm guessing there are fewer male nurses than female nurses .
Oh noes ! ! ! 1 !
Smells like discrimination to me ! Or maybe , and just maybe , men and women have different priorities and value systems and therefore make different choices in their lives .
Maybe working 60 + hour weeks for a shaky startup in a high stress environment is less appealing to most women than it is to most men .
I do n't know .
And you probably do n't either.Hmmm.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would just like to chime in and say that correlation is not causation.I think that way too often "gender gap" issues are misconstrued.
Bad statistics are used to push worse agendas.So let's assume that the numbers presented above are factual, properly represented statistics that accurately reflect the reality of the world.
So what?
What does that even mean?I'm guessing there are fewer male nurses than female nurses.
Oh noes!!!1!
Smells like discrimination to me!Or maybe, and just maybe, men and women have different priorities and value systems and therefore make different choices in their lives.
Maybe working 60+ hour weeks for a shaky startup in a high stress environment is less appealing to most women than it is to most men.
I don't know.
And you probably don't either.Hmmm...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053526</id>
	<title>I'm not that surprised</title>
	<author>NtroP</author>
	<datestamp>1265569620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do some "Angel" investing on occasion (I'm not at VC stage yet), meaning that I invest some of my money in promising startups. As much as it may seem that "the kids" have all the tech-saavy and good ideas, I look for startups that are lead by people with fairly extensive experience in both "tech" and business. That means that I'd be hard pressed to put my hard-earned money into a new company that's being run by a 25-year-old who is probably right out of college and has never run a business before. Now, I know that many of the great companies were started by kids with no business experience and I'm probably missing out on a good thing here. However, when I am presented with two competing proposals of otherwise equal potential where the difference is that one company is lead by a kid with no "real-world" experience and the other is lead by someone who's been in the field for 10-20 years, has run other businesses (even failed ones), I'll probably go for the experience - if all other factors are equal. In fact, I believe the youngest person I've ever funded was around 33 at the time.</p><p>So, how does this fit in with the gender issue? I've been in the IT field since 1984 and I can tell you that girls were almost entirely absent from my field. What this means in terms of total experience today is that those in the high-tech field with the most experience tend to be predominately men. It would also follow that those with enough experience in their field who are seriously ready to both run a business that requires funding at the VC-level (i.e. millions of dollars) and have enough of a portfolio and background to attract VC would tend to be predominately men. Think about the ages of people running *most* large, successful companies; they tend to be in their 50's or older. Look back at how many women were in the workforce, getting management and "technical" experience in the 70's and 80's. Keeping in mind that during that time women really didn't have the same opportunities as men in the workplace and they tended toward more "traditional" positions - thus further reducing their potential experience in roles that would lead to high-level executive positions.</p><p>Is this *fair* to women? Not really. They've always had to fight harder to be accepted into non-traditional roles in business. Is it *fair* to men for women to get moved into positions of authority simply because there aren't enough women in positions of authority? No. However, as someone who puts my money out there on the line, I'm looking for the best chance of a return that I can find. I don't care about the race, creed, color or gender of who's leading the company. I care about their chances of leading the company to success and my getting a return on my investment. Generally that will tend to lean toward those with experience, and in the technical fields that *tends* to be populated with males.</p><p>Now, I'm always on the lookout for the exceptions...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do some " Angel " investing on occasion ( I 'm not at VC stage yet ) , meaning that I invest some of my money in promising startups .
As much as it may seem that " the kids " have all the tech-saavy and good ideas , I look for startups that are lead by people with fairly extensive experience in both " tech " and business .
That means that I 'd be hard pressed to put my hard-earned money into a new company that 's being run by a 25-year-old who is probably right out of college and has never run a business before .
Now , I know that many of the great companies were started by kids with no business experience and I 'm probably missing out on a good thing here .
However , when I am presented with two competing proposals of otherwise equal potential where the difference is that one company is lead by a kid with no " real-world " experience and the other is lead by someone who 's been in the field for 10-20 years , has run other businesses ( even failed ones ) , I 'll probably go for the experience - if all other factors are equal .
In fact , I believe the youngest person I 've ever funded was around 33 at the time.So , how does this fit in with the gender issue ?
I 've been in the IT field since 1984 and I can tell you that girls were almost entirely absent from my field .
What this means in terms of total experience today is that those in the high-tech field with the most experience tend to be predominately men .
It would also follow that those with enough experience in their field who are seriously ready to both run a business that requires funding at the VC-level ( i.e .
millions of dollars ) and have enough of a portfolio and background to attract VC would tend to be predominately men .
Think about the ages of people running * most * large , successful companies ; they tend to be in their 50 's or older .
Look back at how many women were in the workforce , getting management and " technical " experience in the 70 's and 80 's .
Keeping in mind that during that time women really did n't have the same opportunities as men in the workplace and they tended toward more " traditional " positions - thus further reducing their potential experience in roles that would lead to high-level executive positions.Is this * fair * to women ?
Not really .
They 've always had to fight harder to be accepted into non-traditional roles in business .
Is it * fair * to men for women to get moved into positions of authority simply because there are n't enough women in positions of authority ?
No. However , as someone who puts my money out there on the line , I 'm looking for the best chance of a return that I can find .
I do n't care about the race , creed , color or gender of who 's leading the company .
I care about their chances of leading the company to success and my getting a return on my investment .
Generally that will tend to lean toward those with experience , and in the technical fields that * tends * to be populated with males.Now , I 'm always on the lookout for the exceptions.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do some "Angel" investing on occasion (I'm not at VC stage yet), meaning that I invest some of my money in promising startups.
As much as it may seem that "the kids" have all the tech-saavy and good ideas, I look for startups that are lead by people with fairly extensive experience in both "tech" and business.
That means that I'd be hard pressed to put my hard-earned money into a new company that's being run by a 25-year-old who is probably right out of college and has never run a business before.
Now, I know that many of the great companies were started by kids with no business experience and I'm probably missing out on a good thing here.
However, when I am presented with two competing proposals of otherwise equal potential where the difference is that one company is lead by a kid with no "real-world" experience and the other is lead by someone who's been in the field for 10-20 years, has run other businesses (even failed ones), I'll probably go for the experience - if all other factors are equal.
In fact, I believe the youngest person I've ever funded was around 33 at the time.So, how does this fit in with the gender issue?
I've been in the IT field since 1984 and I can tell you that girls were almost entirely absent from my field.
What this means in terms of total experience today is that those in the high-tech field with the most experience tend to be predominately men.
It would also follow that those with enough experience in their field who are seriously ready to both run a business that requires funding at the VC-level (i.e.
millions of dollars) and have enough of a portfolio and background to attract VC would tend to be predominately men.
Think about the ages of people running *most* large, successful companies; they tend to be in their 50's or older.
Look back at how many women were in the workforce, getting management and "technical" experience in the 70's and 80's.
Keeping in mind that during that time women really didn't have the same opportunities as men in the workplace and they tended toward more "traditional" positions - thus further reducing their potential experience in roles that would lead to high-level executive positions.Is this *fair* to women?
Not really.
They've always had to fight harder to be accepted into non-traditional roles in business.
Is it *fair* to men for women to get moved into positions of authority simply because there aren't enough women in positions of authority?
No. However, as someone who puts my money out there on the line, I'm looking for the best chance of a return that I can find.
I don't care about the race, creed, color or gender of who's leading the company.
I care about their chances of leading the company to success and my getting a return on my investment.
Generally that will tend to lean toward those with experience, and in the technical fields that *tends* to be populated with males.Now, I'm always on the lookout for the exceptions...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31057844</id>
	<title>Re:As expected</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1265563200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sociopaths also do well in CS generally because well it is filled by nerds. Hell aspbergers is insanely common in CS and it manifests itself in a way somewhat related to sociopathy (before you freak out, i mean they both suck at people skills, not that nerds have no souls or however you view sociopaths). IT is a whole network of people that are brilliant but with on average poor people skills. It isn't surprising women don't fit in as well. The female brain on average is much better at socializing or at least expend a large portion of their thought on it (nature not nurture btw).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sociopaths also do well in CS generally because well it is filled by nerds .
Hell aspbergers is insanely common in CS and it manifests itself in a way somewhat related to sociopathy ( before you freak out , i mean they both suck at people skills , not that nerds have no souls or however you view sociopaths ) .
IT is a whole network of people that are brilliant but with on average poor people skills .
It is n't surprising women do n't fit in as well .
The female brain on average is much better at socializing or at least expend a large portion of their thought on it ( nature not nurture btw ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sociopaths also do well in CS generally because well it is filled by nerds.
Hell aspbergers is insanely common in CS and it manifests itself in a way somewhat related to sociopathy (before you freak out, i mean they both suck at people skills, not that nerds have no souls or however you view sociopaths).
IT is a whole network of people that are brilliant but with on average poor people skills.
It isn't surprising women don't fit in as well.
The female brain on average is much better at socializing or at least expend a large portion of their thought on it (nature not nurture btw).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31060718</id>
	<title>The reason is simple...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265646180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Women aren't as likely to be unethical scumbags like most of the "dirty VC".  They are the ultimate "necessary" evil.  Anyone with integrity who cares about their company would never get in bed with a VC.  Unfortunately, since the new trend seems to be: create a startup, get some buzz about it, then sell as fast as you can, they are going to be around for a while.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Women are n't as likely to be unethical scumbags like most of the " dirty VC " .
They are the ultimate " necessary " evil .
Anyone with integrity who cares about their company would never get in bed with a VC .
Unfortunately , since the new trend seems to be : create a startup , get some buzz about it , then sell as fast as you can , they are going to be around for a while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Women aren't as likely to be unethical scumbags like most of the "dirty VC".
They are the ultimate "necessary" evil.
Anyone with integrity who cares about their company would never get in bed with a VC.
Unfortunately, since the new trend seems to be: create a startup, get some buzz about it, then sell as fast as you can, they are going to be around for a while.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053284</id>
	<title>So what</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265567700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is this important?   Go make me a sandwich.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this important ?
Go make me a sandwich .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this important?
Go make me a sandwich.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053988</id>
	<title>Re:So what</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1265574300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Stop yelling at your mom, come up out of the basement and make it yourself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop yelling at your mom , come up out of the basement and make it yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop yelling at your mom, come up out of the basement and make it yourself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053828</id>
	<title>Seems like a goldmine  actually ...</title>
	<author>gordguide</author>
	<datestamp>1265572800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, Dunn &amp; Bradstreet reports that 19\% of all companies in all industries are run by women.</p><p>And then it tells us 3\% of tech firms were founded by women.</p><p>And then it tells us that 1\% of high-tech firms "as in Silicon Valley" were founded by women.</p><p>Finally, it tells us that 9\% of Venture Capital investments go to women-led companies (in some nebulous undefined "historical" time period) and for 2007 the figure is 3\%.</p><p>Let's see here<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... 1\% women led companies in Silicon Valley. 3\% of VC funding.</p><p>1\%. Hmmm.</p><p>3\%. Hmmmmmmmmmm.</p><p>Sounds like the article, which purports to concentrate on technology firms, seems to suggest the women-led companies in Silicon Valley have no trouble whatsoever getting funding, and lots of it.</p><p>And only 3\% of tech firms and 1\% of high-tech firms (as in Silicon Valley) were founded by women. Look at the executive teams of any of the Valley's tech firms -- minus a couple of exceptions like Padmasree Warrior of Cisco -- you won't find any women CTOs. Look at the management teams of companies like Apple -- not even one woman. It's the same with the VC firms -- male dominated. You'll find some CFOs and HR heads, but women VCs are a rare commodity in venture capital. And with the recent venture bloodbath, the proportion of women in the VC numbers is declining further. It's no coincidence that only one of the 84 VCs on the 2009 TheFunded list of top VCs was a woman.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Additionally, it is harder for women to obtain funding than for men.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... historically, women-led companies have received less than 9\% of venture capital investments; in 2007, the proportion of funded female CEOs dropped to 3\%."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , Dunn &amp; Bradstreet reports that 19 \ % of all companies in all industries are run by women.And then it tells us 3 \ % of tech firms were founded by women.And then it tells us that 1 \ % of high-tech firms " as in Silicon Valley " were founded by women.Finally , it tells us that 9 \ % of Venture Capital investments go to women-led companies ( in some nebulous undefined " historical " time period ) and for 2007 the figure is 3 \ % .Let 's see here ... 1 \ % women led companies in Silicon Valley .
3 \ % of VC funding.1 \ % .
Hmmm.3 \ % . Hmmmmmmmmmm.Sounds like the article , which purports to concentrate on technology firms , seems to suggest the women-led companies in Silicon Valley have no trouble whatsoever getting funding , and lots of it.And only 3 \ % of tech firms and 1 \ % of high-tech firms ( as in Silicon Valley ) were founded by women .
Look at the executive teams of any of the Valley 's tech firms -- minus a couple of exceptions like Padmasree Warrior of Cisco -- you wo n't find any women CTOs .
Look at the management teams of companies like Apple -- not even one woman .
It 's the same with the VC firms -- male dominated .
You 'll find some CFOs and HR heads , but women VCs are a rare commodity in venture capital .
And with the recent venture bloodbath , the proportion of women in the VC numbers is declining further .
It 's no coincidence that only one of the 84 VCs on the 2009 TheFunded list of top VCs was a woman .
... Additionally , it is harder for women to obtain funding than for men .
... historically , women-led companies have received less than 9 \ % of venture capital investments ; in 2007 , the proportion of funded female CEOs dropped to 3 \ % .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, Dunn &amp; Bradstreet reports that 19\% of all companies in all industries are run by women.And then it tells us 3\% of tech firms were founded by women.And then it tells us that 1\% of high-tech firms "as in Silicon Valley" were founded by women.Finally, it tells us that 9\% of Venture Capital investments go to women-led companies (in some nebulous undefined "historical" time period) and for 2007 the figure is 3\%.Let's see here ... 1\% women led companies in Silicon Valley.
3\% of VC funding.1\%.
Hmmm.3\%. Hmmmmmmmmmm.Sounds like the article, which purports to concentrate on technology firms, seems to suggest the women-led companies in Silicon Valley have no trouble whatsoever getting funding, and lots of it.And only 3\% of tech firms and 1\% of high-tech firms (as in Silicon Valley) were founded by women.
Look at the executive teams of any of the Valley's tech firms -- minus a couple of exceptions like Padmasree Warrior of Cisco -- you won't find any women CTOs.
Look at the management teams of companies like Apple -- not even one woman.
It's the same with the VC firms -- male dominated.
You'll find some CFOs and HR heads, but women VCs are a rare commodity in venture capital.
And with the recent venture bloodbath, the proportion of women in the VC numbers is declining further.
It's no coincidence that only one of the 84 VCs on the 2009 TheFunded list of top VCs was a woman.
... Additionally, it is harder for women to obtain funding than for men.
... historically, women-led companies have received less than 9\% of venture capital investments; in 2007, the proportion of funded female CEOs dropped to 3\%.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053688</id>
	<title>Re:A view from 50,000 feet</title>
	<author>saleenS281</author>
	<datestamp>1265571240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What we need are SUCCESSFUL entrepreneurs.  You failed to mention what the return rate for VC's are on loans given to men vs. women.  Successfully run VC's take into account EVERY aspect of the company they're giving money to.  My dollar is on them getting consistently higher return rates from men...</htmltext>
<tokenext>What we need are SUCCESSFUL entrepreneurs .
You failed to mention what the return rate for VC 's are on loans given to men vs. women. Successfully run VC 's take into account EVERY aspect of the company they 're giving money to .
My dollar is on them getting consistently higher return rates from men.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What we need are SUCCESSFUL entrepreneurs.
You failed to mention what the return rate for VC's are on loans given to men vs. women.  Successfully run VC's take into account EVERY aspect of the company they're giving money to.
My dollar is on them getting consistently higher return rates from men...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053072</id>
	<title>Men and women are different.</title>
	<author>xtal</author>
	<datestamp>1265566080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Film at 11.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Film at 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Film at 11.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31059690</id>
	<title>Re:its all relative</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1265636520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>am I the only one that can see that hormones may be to blame?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
No, judging by the replies so far, on slashdot you're probably in the 95\% that believe precisely this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>am I the only one that can see that hormones may be to blame ?
No , judging by the replies so far , on slashdot you 're probably in the 95 \ % that believe precisely this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>am I the only one that can see that hormones may be to blame?
No, judging by the replies so far, on slashdot you're probably in the 95\% that believe precisely this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053678</id>
	<title>Which would be better: high-IQ women working or</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265571120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>raising half a dozen children and later helping out with the grandchildren?  <b>On average</b>, raising those children will have a bigger impact on society than spending her reproductive years on a career.</p><p>If you wanted to cripple Western Civilization you could convince most of the smart women that they had to have careers, weigh down the middle class with taxes to curtail family size there, and give welfare to everyone else.  Many people will beat the odds and more than a few trust fund brats will disappoint, but overall wouldn't this explain a lot? This bias against reproduction has created a very nasty negative feedback loop I think.</p><p>Unless you buy into the notion that humans are arbitrarily exempt from the rules of evolution of course.</p><p>I'm just saying that interfering less with personal decisions might lead to better outcomes.  Enough with the reeducation programs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>raising half a dozen children and later helping out with the grandchildren ?
On average , raising those children will have a bigger impact on society than spending her reproductive years on a career.If you wanted to cripple Western Civilization you could convince most of the smart women that they had to have careers , weigh down the middle class with taxes to curtail family size there , and give welfare to everyone else .
Many people will beat the odds and more than a few trust fund brats will disappoint , but overall would n't this explain a lot ?
This bias against reproduction has created a very nasty negative feedback loop I think.Unless you buy into the notion that humans are arbitrarily exempt from the rules of evolution of course.I 'm just saying that interfering less with personal decisions might lead to better outcomes .
Enough with the reeducation programs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>raising half a dozen children and later helping out with the grandchildren?
On average, raising those children will have a bigger impact on society than spending her reproductive years on a career.If you wanted to cripple Western Civilization you could convince most of the smart women that they had to have careers, weigh down the middle class with taxes to curtail family size there, and give welfare to everyone else.
Many people will beat the odds and more than a few trust fund brats will disappoint, but overall wouldn't this explain a lot?
This bias against reproduction has created a very nasty negative feedback loop I think.Unless you buy into the notion that humans are arbitrarily exempt from the rules of evolution of course.I'm just saying that interfering less with personal decisions might lead to better outcomes.
Enough with the reeducation programs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31054934</id>
	<title>Re:Lack of male kindergarten teachers?</title>
	<author>ADRA</author>
	<datestamp>1265538180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men\_in\_nursing" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men\_in\_nursing</a> [wikipedia.org]<br><a href="http://www.cno.org/prac/yau/2005/06\_male\_nurses.htm" title="cno.org">http://www.cno.org/prac/yau/2005/06\_male\_nurses.htm</a> [cno.org]</p><p>Answer: They are discriminated against, but they still seem to get promoted better than their female counterparts.</p><p>PS troll: Its not about wanting to become a kindergarten teacher, or race car driver, or CEO, or nurse. Its that once you've chosen your aspired to career path you are not being discriminated against for who you are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men \ _in \ _nursing [ wikipedia.org ] http : //www.cno.org/prac/yau/2005/06 \ _male \ _nurses.htm [ cno.org ] Answer : They are discriminated against , but they still seem to get promoted better than their female counterparts.PS troll : Its not about wanting to become a kindergarten teacher , or race car driver , or CEO , or nurse .
Its that once you 've chosen your aspired to career path you are not being discriminated against for who you are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men\_in\_nursing [wikipedia.org]http://www.cno.org/prac/yau/2005/06\_male\_nurses.htm [cno.org]Answer: They are discriminated against, but they still seem to get promoted better than their female counterparts.PS troll: Its not about wanting to become a kindergarten teacher, or race car driver, or CEO, or nurse.
Its that once you've chosen your aspired to career path you are not being discriminated against for who you are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31054346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053134</id>
	<title>The Wrong Age</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1265566680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>      Women control the majority of money in the US. It seems that that is true simply because they survive longer due to their husbands working their fannies into an early grave. But having money and power in the declining years does not bless them with nimble minds at that age. So if we get a bunch of bright young women willing to dedicate themselves totally to tech in the fanatical way that young males often do we may see women getting more funding. I guess they will have to give up on the baby making, long nails, and endless shopping.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Women control the majority of money in the US .
It seems that that is true simply because they survive longer due to their husbands working their fannies into an early grave .
But having money and power in the declining years does not bless them with nimble minds at that age .
So if we get a bunch of bright young women willing to dedicate themselves totally to tech in the fanatical way that young males often do we may see women getting more funding .
I guess they will have to give up on the baby making , long nails , and endless shopping .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>      Women control the majority of money in the US.
It seems that that is true simply because they survive longer due to their husbands working their fannies into an early grave.
But having money and power in the declining years does not bless them with nimble minds at that age.
So if we get a bunch of bright young women willing to dedicate themselves totally to tech in the fanatical way that young males often do we may see women getting more funding.
I guess they will have to give up on the baby making, long nails, and endless shopping.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053444</id>
	<title>Division of labor</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1265568900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most comments seem to be from the outside looking in, looking from the big picture to the small.</p><p>Try a different strategy.  Look at the small picture and imagine it replicated a zillion times.</p><p>So, the wife and I serve the evil empire at our corporate jobs.  Due to gender quotas, etc, she's pretty much untouchable at a big enough corporation in her technical field.  The only way it could be better for my wife, is if she were a minority.  Me, I'm just another off the shelf white male tech dude.  Which of us should stay in the corporate world to haul down some cash and (more importantly) health insurance?  The replaceable cog in the machine man, or the quota'd fire-proof woman?  Obviously the least risky solution is she keeps her day job, he forms the new company.</p><p>Multiply by roughly 10000x and you get the reported numbers.  No great surprise, really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most comments seem to be from the outside looking in , looking from the big picture to the small.Try a different strategy .
Look at the small picture and imagine it replicated a zillion times.So , the wife and I serve the evil empire at our corporate jobs .
Due to gender quotas , etc , she 's pretty much untouchable at a big enough corporation in her technical field .
The only way it could be better for my wife , is if she were a minority .
Me , I 'm just another off the shelf white male tech dude .
Which of us should stay in the corporate world to haul down some cash and ( more importantly ) health insurance ?
The replaceable cog in the machine man , or the quota 'd fire-proof woman ?
Obviously the least risky solution is she keeps her day job , he forms the new company.Multiply by roughly 10000x and you get the reported numbers .
No great surprise , really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most comments seem to be from the outside looking in, looking from the big picture to the small.Try a different strategy.
Look at the small picture and imagine it replicated a zillion times.So, the wife and I serve the evil empire at our corporate jobs.
Due to gender quotas, etc, she's pretty much untouchable at a big enough corporation in her technical field.
The only way it could be better for my wife, is if she were a minority.
Me, I'm just another off the shelf white male tech dude.
Which of us should stay in the corporate world to haul down some cash and (more importantly) health insurance?
The replaceable cog in the machine man, or the quota'd fire-proof woman?
Obviously the least risky solution is she keeps her day job, he forms the new company.Multiply by roughly 10000x and you get the reported numbers.
No great surprise, really.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31065020</id>
	<title>So go shoe shopping with her.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265623740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Go shoe shopping with a gal and
then ask yourself what the level
of financial responsibility she
possesses.
<p>
Also have some visits with wives.
I know of one manager who was forbidden
by his wife from placing women in
certain positions.   While this was
+30 years ago, today I listen to my SO and
her sister and this class of bias is
not gone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go shoe shopping with a gal and then ask yourself what the level of financial responsibility she possesses .
Also have some visits with wives .
I know of one manager who was forbidden by his wife from placing women in certain positions .
While this was + 30 years ago , today I listen to my SO and her sister and this class of bias is not gone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go shoe shopping with a gal and
then ask yourself what the level
of financial responsibility she
possesses.
Also have some visits with wives.
I know of one manager who was forbidden
by his wife from placing women in
certain positions.
While this was
+30 years ago, today I listen to my SO and
her sister and this class of bias is
not gone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31054882</id>
	<title>Statistics...</title>
	<author>ADRA</author>
	<datestamp>1265537760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Before starting I'll violate the internet and give some personal backstory to show some perspective. I'm a man in a software development company. Our company is probably in the minority here, because we've got pretty close to 50\% male / female ratio for developers / testers / DBA's / middle-managers. I'd say that probably only the upper level managers are almost entirely male. I've seen and worked in other companies where frankly a woman working in the company was a conversation point based on its rarity! Different companies foster different opinions which are rooted from their founders or powerful leaders there-after. Now that I've described my context, I can hopefully lay out what views are in this particular issue.</p><p>We see these types of studies and posts on Slashdot come and go every half a year, and it basically comes down to the same old crap. You have the groups:<br>1. I don't give a crap about women. If they had the balls to get ahead they would<br>2. I don't give a crap about the stat. Women aren't programmed to being in 'said role' so all is well in the world<br>3. I think this stat is really serious because it means that women are being discriminated against<br>4. I think this stat is really serious and we should change they way we raise our children, or the way our neighbors raise their children</p><p>Firstly, I'd like to ask this: There are women in the fields described in the review and they find a way to do their jobs day in and day out. If I had a fist full of grant money for a research project about this topic, I'd do a study on the lives of female executives, their world, and the challenges they face day in and out both professionally and personally. How can line item statistics grasp the truth of something so ? Why not:<br>Do high level executives face ongoing male ridicule?<br>Do female executives need to choose either reproduction or promotion?<br>Do women who leave 'said field' (either as executives or not quite there yet) because they felt pushed out, stressed out, underachieving, overachieving, not worth it, or did they just not want to pursue that type of life?</p><p>Speaking of 'that type of life', As a man speaking here, I want to live a long happy and content life where I hope money would not factor into any unhappiness. I think so far I'm doing a good job of that. I haven't had money supply worries since university, and I've been spending well below my means for around 5 years (even before investments, retirement savings, etc..). I'm not going to push myself into more pain to aspire to the greatest position in a company because of all the agony of in-fighting, politics, sucking up, and usually losing a few points of IQ just to make more money and/or to have power over people. If my managers promote me for my merit, then at least I know that I deserved it. I know the adage, you are never totally free in a company until you're on top, but I say what does it take to achieve that freedom, and who do you become from it?</p><p>Another little store about top executives since we're on topic. I knew the CFO of &gt;100million company and was always constantly astounded to find at just how greedy his share holders were for money. These are people what could probably buy a small countries and live like kings, or have their families live hundreds of years without working a day of their lives in contentment.. They will always want more. I really can't say why because I'm just not that type of person. I think everyone should want to do good for their family and themselves, but at some point the acquisition of wealth becomes 'the' purpose of these peoples lives, and that just makes me feel sorry for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Before starting I 'll violate the internet and give some personal backstory to show some perspective .
I 'm a man in a software development company .
Our company is probably in the minority here , because we 've got pretty close to 50 \ % male / female ratio for developers / testers / DBA 's / middle-managers .
I 'd say that probably only the upper level managers are almost entirely male .
I 've seen and worked in other companies where frankly a woman working in the company was a conversation point based on its rarity !
Different companies foster different opinions which are rooted from their founders or powerful leaders there-after .
Now that I 've described my context , I can hopefully lay out what views are in this particular issue.We see these types of studies and posts on Slashdot come and go every half a year , and it basically comes down to the same old crap .
You have the groups : 1 .
I do n't give a crap about women .
If they had the balls to get ahead they would2 .
I do n't give a crap about the stat .
Women are n't programmed to being in 'said role ' so all is well in the world3 .
I think this stat is really serious because it means that women are being discriminated against4 .
I think this stat is really serious and we should change they way we raise our children , or the way our neighbors raise their childrenFirstly , I 'd like to ask this : There are women in the fields described in the review and they find a way to do their jobs day in and day out .
If I had a fist full of grant money for a research project about this topic , I 'd do a study on the lives of female executives , their world , and the challenges they face day in and out both professionally and personally .
How can line item statistics grasp the truth of something so ?
Why not : Do high level executives face ongoing male ridicule ? Do female executives need to choose either reproduction or promotion ? Do women who leave 'said field ' ( either as executives or not quite there yet ) because they felt pushed out , stressed out , underachieving , overachieving , not worth it , or did they just not want to pursue that type of life ? Speaking of 'that type of life ' , As a man speaking here , I want to live a long happy and content life where I hope money would not factor into any unhappiness .
I think so far I 'm doing a good job of that .
I have n't had money supply worries since university , and I 've been spending well below my means for around 5 years ( even before investments , retirement savings , etc.. ) .
I 'm not going to push myself into more pain to aspire to the greatest position in a company because of all the agony of in-fighting , politics , sucking up , and usually losing a few points of IQ just to make more money and/or to have power over people .
If my managers promote me for my merit , then at least I know that I deserved it .
I know the adage , you are never totally free in a company until you 're on top , but I say what does it take to achieve that freedom , and who do you become from it ? Another little store about top executives since we 're on topic .
I knew the CFO of &gt; 100million company and was always constantly astounded to find at just how greedy his share holders were for money .
These are people what could probably buy a small countries and live like kings , or have their families live hundreds of years without working a day of their lives in contentment.. They will always want more .
I really ca n't say why because I 'm just not that type of person .
I think everyone should want to do good for their family and themselves , but at some point the acquisition of wealth becomes 'the ' purpose of these peoples lives , and that just makes me feel sorry for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before starting I'll violate the internet and give some personal backstory to show some perspective.
I'm a man in a software development company.
Our company is probably in the minority here, because we've got pretty close to 50\% male / female ratio for developers / testers / DBA's / middle-managers.
I'd say that probably only the upper level managers are almost entirely male.
I've seen and worked in other companies where frankly a woman working in the company was a conversation point based on its rarity!
Different companies foster different opinions which are rooted from their founders or powerful leaders there-after.
Now that I've described my context, I can hopefully lay out what views are in this particular issue.We see these types of studies and posts on Slashdot come and go every half a year, and it basically comes down to the same old crap.
You have the groups:1.
I don't give a crap about women.
If they had the balls to get ahead they would2.
I don't give a crap about the stat.
Women aren't programmed to being in 'said role' so all is well in the world3.
I think this stat is really serious because it means that women are being discriminated against4.
I think this stat is really serious and we should change they way we raise our children, or the way our neighbors raise their childrenFirstly, I'd like to ask this: There are women in the fields described in the review and they find a way to do their jobs day in and day out.
If I had a fist full of grant money for a research project about this topic, I'd do a study on the lives of female executives, their world, and the challenges they face day in and out both professionally and personally.
How can line item statistics grasp the truth of something so ?
Why not:Do high level executives face ongoing male ridicule?Do female executives need to choose either reproduction or promotion?Do women who leave 'said field' (either as executives or not quite there yet) because they felt pushed out, stressed out, underachieving, overachieving, not worth it, or did they just not want to pursue that type of life?Speaking of 'that type of life', As a man speaking here, I want to live a long happy and content life where I hope money would not factor into any unhappiness.
I think so far I'm doing a good job of that.
I haven't had money supply worries since university, and I've been spending well below my means for around 5 years (even before investments, retirement savings, etc..).
I'm not going to push myself into more pain to aspire to the greatest position in a company because of all the agony of in-fighting, politics, sucking up, and usually losing a few points of IQ just to make more money and/or to have power over people.
If my managers promote me for my merit, then at least I know that I deserved it.
I know the adage, you are never totally free in a company until you're on top, but I say what does it take to achieve that freedom, and who do you become from it?Another little store about top executives since we're on topic.
I knew the CFO of &gt;100million company and was always constantly astounded to find at just how greedy his share holders were for money.
These are people what could probably buy a small countries and live like kings, or have their families live hundreds of years without working a day of their lives in contentment.. They will always want more.
I really can't say why because I'm just not that type of person.
I think everyone should want to do good for their family and themselves, but at some point the acquisition of wealth becomes 'the' purpose of these peoples lives, and that just makes me feel sorry for them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31055116</id>
	<title>Re:As expected</title>
	<author>sourcerror</author>
	<datestamp>1265539380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it because most people aren't CEOs, the personality traits required to be CEO are so far from the average, that we classify it as abnormal? I mean, they have to make some hard decision and being nice and avoiding conflict could ruin the company.</p><p>On the other hand the psychologists who classified them as antisocial are being paid for being nice and understanding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it because most people are n't CEOs , the personality traits required to be CEO are so far from the average , that we classify it as abnormal ?
I mean , they have to make some hard decision and being nice and avoiding conflict could ruin the company.On the other hand the psychologists who classified them as antisocial are being paid for being nice and understanding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it because most people aren't CEOs, the personality traits required to be CEO are so far from the average, that we classify it as abnormal?
I mean, they have to make some hard decision and being nice and avoiding conflict could ruin the company.On the other hand the psychologists who classified them as antisocial are being paid for being nice and understanding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053692</id>
	<title>Re:A view from 50,000 feet</title>
	<author>ffflala</author>
	<datestamp>1265571240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's interesting. I just finished a semester on consumer protection law, with a heavy focus on Equal Credit Opportunity Act and similar measures that are designed to eliminate, among other things, gender discrimination in lending.</p><p>A statistically significant disparity in loan approval ratings probably indicates that there are significant violations of the ECOA. This is curious, because the ECOA provides for considerable punitive damages for discriminatory lending practices. ($10k for individual actions and up to $500k for class actions.) <a href="http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre15.shtm" title="ftc.gov">http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre15.shtm</a> [ftc.gov]</p><p>While venture capital is another story, these kinds of bank loans should be covered under the ECOA. (At least, I am not aware of a statutory exception that would eliminate entrepreneurial loans.) It sounds like the bankers' actions were very clear violations of the ECOA. The Blake article you mentioned is behind a pay wall and I can't afford the $30 to get to it at the moment. Did it have any account of subsequent legal actions on the part of the women entrepreneurs who were subjected to gender discrimination? I certainly hope so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's interesting .
I just finished a semester on consumer protection law , with a heavy focus on Equal Credit Opportunity Act and similar measures that are designed to eliminate , among other things , gender discrimination in lending.A statistically significant disparity in loan approval ratings probably indicates that there are significant violations of the ECOA .
This is curious , because the ECOA provides for considerable punitive damages for discriminatory lending practices .
( $ 10k for individual actions and up to $ 500k for class actions .
) http : //www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre15.shtm [ ftc.gov ] While venture capital is another story , these kinds of bank loans should be covered under the ECOA .
( At least , I am not aware of a statutory exception that would eliminate entrepreneurial loans .
) It sounds like the bankers ' actions were very clear violations of the ECOA .
The Blake article you mentioned is behind a pay wall and I ca n't afford the $ 30 to get to it at the moment .
Did it have any account of subsequent legal actions on the part of the women entrepreneurs who were subjected to gender discrimination ?
I certainly hope so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's interesting.
I just finished a semester on consumer protection law, with a heavy focus on Equal Credit Opportunity Act and similar measures that are designed to eliminate, among other things, gender discrimination in lending.A statistically significant disparity in loan approval ratings probably indicates that there are significant violations of the ECOA.
This is curious, because the ECOA provides for considerable punitive damages for discriminatory lending practices.
($10k for individual actions and up to $500k for class actions.
) http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre15.shtm [ftc.gov]While venture capital is another story, these kinds of bank loans should be covered under the ECOA.
(At least, I am not aware of a statutory exception that would eliminate entrepreneurial loans.
) It sounds like the bankers' actions were very clear violations of the ECOA.
The Blake article you mentioned is behind a pay wall and I can't afford the $30 to get to it at the moment.
Did it have any account of subsequent legal actions on the part of the women entrepreneurs who were subjected to gender discrimination?
I certainly hope so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31056686</id>
	<title>Re:Does it ever occur to anybody...</title>
	<author>Reality Master 101</author>
	<datestamp>1265552280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>The same argument has been made historically to explain - and justify - the exclusion of women from every profession.</i> </p><p>Not true. Historically, men didn't even bother to explain and justify the exclusion of women. Women simply had their place, and men had their place, and there was compelling reason to change anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The same argument has been made historically to explain - and justify - the exclusion of women from every profession .
Not true .
Historically , men did n't even bother to explain and justify the exclusion of women .
Women simply had their place , and men had their place , and there was compelling reason to change anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The same argument has been made historically to explain - and justify - the exclusion of women from every profession.
Not true.
Historically, men didn't even bother to explain and justify the exclusion of women.
Women simply had their place, and men had their place, and there was compelling reason to change anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31056306</id>
	<title>Dude, I got daughters ...</title>
	<author>raque</author>
	<datestamp>1265548320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I just love on these is that almost no women are posting.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. really doesn't have a large female audience. As for daughters, I have two, both over 10, neither codes, both do what the fuck they want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I just love on these is that almost no women are posting .
/. really does n't have a large female audience .
As for daughters , I have two , both over 10 , neither codes , both do what the fuck they want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I just love on these is that almost no women are posting.
/. really doesn't have a large female audience.
As for daughters, I have two, both over 10, neither codes, both do what the fuck they want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31059630</id>
	<title>Re:Does it ever occur to anybody...</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1265635320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Bottom line is if a business plan is sound enough, a 12-year old could get funding.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
I think that says more about the sort of buffoons who dole out venture capital than anything else.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bottom line is if a business plan is sound enough , a 12-year old could get funding .
I think that says more about the sort of buffoons who dole out venture capital than anything else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bottom line is if a business plan is sound enough, a 12-year old could get funding.
I think that says more about the sort of buffoons who dole out venture capital than anything else.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053686</id>
	<title>Re:Does it ever occur to anybody...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265571180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, FINALLY someone said it. As if half of Slashdot doesn't post something to that effect every time there's an article about women in computing.</p><p>Yawn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , FINALLY someone said it .
As if half of Slashdot does n't post something to that effect every time there 's an article about women in computing.Yawn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, FINALLY someone said it.
As if half of Slashdot doesn't post something to that effect every time there's an article about women in computing.Yawn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053618</id>
	<title>How about we fix the homelessness gap first?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265570580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Homeless men greatly outnumber homeless women.<br>Or how about fixing the died-on-the-job-gap, too?<br>Men die more often on the job.<br>Focusing on those few men that have been wildly successful is silly when so many other men are used and thrown away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Homeless men greatly outnumber homeless women.Or how about fixing the died-on-the-job-gap , too ? Men die more often on the job.Focusing on those few men that have been wildly successful is silly when so many other men are used and thrown away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Homeless men greatly outnumber homeless women.Or how about fixing the died-on-the-job-gap, too?Men die more often on the job.Focusing on those few men that have been wildly successful is silly when so many other men are used and thrown away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053070</id>
	<title>As expected</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1265566080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you believe that sociopaths are more likely to become effective CEOs, as has been claimed, then given that antisocial personality disorder is about 3 times more common among men than women, this is pretty much exactly what you'd expect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you believe that sociopaths are more likely to become effective CEOs , as has been claimed , then given that antisocial personality disorder is about 3 times more common among men than women , this is pretty much exactly what you 'd expect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you believe that sociopaths are more likely to become effective CEOs, as has been claimed, then given that antisocial personality disorder is about 3 times more common among men than women, this is pretty much exactly what you'd expect.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31079596</id>
	<title>ahhhh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265716920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look now the comments section in that website is all fucked. And that way the womans behind the Tech are going to win the battle jajajaja. how is that manipulating opinions and coming with the stupid funding theory. Hey ladies. Face it we man are better at doing this. Doesn't matters how hard you try. Why? Is simple. Our brains are designed to see things in a whole while you put your eyes in details. Therefore we are better at management and over thousands of years you have selected us for being better or more successful. We don't select by that, you do. So we evolved to be better in that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;). As a matter of fact we males express more ADN diseases. I remember the womans at the class used to laugh at us because of that. Then i used my head and replied. - Ohh then great we show our problems. That means since i do not have them then my DNA is OK but we'll never know about all of you. Jajaja.- Is our role. Or what do you want? Replace us also in that? sorry that theory of the funding is bullshit. I have never got funding and got a zillion projects about to be out. Is like that you wait for funding, we don't, we do even without funding<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;). Besides sometimes you try to get a funding comparable to the size of a part tf the body<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D. And well many times the ppl giving the money are not willing to buy it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look now the comments section in that website is all fucked .
And that way the womans behind the Tech are going to win the battle jajajaja .
how is that manipulating opinions and coming with the stupid funding theory .
Hey ladies .
Face it we man are better at doing this .
Does n't matters how hard you try .
Why ? Is simple .
Our brains are designed to see things in a whole while you put your eyes in details .
Therefore we are better at management and over thousands of years you have selected us for being better or more successful .
We do n't select by that , you do .
So we evolved to be better in that ; ) .
As a matter of fact we males express more ADN diseases .
I remember the womans at the class used to laugh at us because of that .
Then i used my head and replied .
- Ohh then great we show our problems .
That means since i do not have them then my DNA is OK but we 'll never know about all of you .
Jajaja.- Is our role .
Or what do you want ?
Replace us also in that ?
sorry that theory of the funding is bullshit .
I have never got funding and got a zillion projects about to be out .
Is like that you wait for funding , we do n't , we do even without funding ; ) .
Besides sometimes you try to get a funding comparable to the size of a part tf the body : D. And well many times the ppl giving the money are not willing to buy it ; ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look now the comments section in that website is all fucked.
And that way the womans behind the Tech are going to win the battle jajajaja.
how is that manipulating opinions and coming with the stupid funding theory.
Hey ladies.
Face it we man are better at doing this.
Doesn't matters how hard you try.
Why? Is simple.
Our brains are designed to see things in a whole while you put your eyes in details.
Therefore we are better at management and over thousands of years you have selected us for being better or more successful.
We don't select by that, you do.
So we evolved to be better in that ;).
As a matter of fact we males express more ADN diseases.
I remember the womans at the class used to laugh at us because of that.
Then i used my head and replied.
- Ohh then great we show our problems.
That means since i do not have them then my DNA is OK but we'll never know about all of you.
Jajaja.- Is our role.
Or what do you want?
Replace us also in that?
sorry that theory of the funding is bullshit.
I have never got funding and got a zillion projects about to be out.
Is like that you wait for funding, we don't, we do even without funding ;).
Besides sometimes you try to get a funding comparable to the size of a part tf the body :D. And well many times the ppl giving the money are not willing to buy it ;).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31066022</id>
	<title>Re:Does it ever occur to anybody...</title>
	<author>HuguesT</author>
	<datestamp>1265627460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or the IEEE <a href="http://www.ieee.org/women/" title="ieee.org">WIE</a> [ieee.org].</p><p>4\% women engineers is not normal. I know, I married one, she dropped out of the profession not because of lack of capability or interest, but because of the lack of respect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or the IEEE WIE [ ieee.org ] .4 \ % women engineers is not normal .
I know , I married one , she dropped out of the profession not because of lack of capability or interest , but because of the lack of respect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or the IEEE WIE [ieee.org].4\% women engineers is not normal.
I know, I married one, she dropped out of the profession not because of lack of capability or interest, but because of the lack of respect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053714</id>
	<title>Re:Does it ever occur to anybody...</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1265571600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>...that if women aren't highly represented in these endeavors, it might be a sign that women just aren't interested in the same damn things that men are?!</i> </p><p>The same argument has been made historically to explain - and justify - the exclusion of women from every profession.</p><p>The same argument has been used against those of other races and religions. It has never been far distant when the geek talks about outsourcing his work to India.</p><p>Microsoft seems to care about this stuff:</p><p> <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/about/diversity/programs/dac/wam.mspx" title="microsoft.com">Women at Microsoft</a> [microsoft.com], <a href="http://www.conference-board.org/Conferences/conference.cfm?id=2042" title="conference-board.org">Women's Leadership Conference</a> [conference-board.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...that if women are n't highly represented in these endeavors , it might be a sign that women just are n't interested in the same damn things that men are ? !
The same argument has been made historically to explain - and justify - the exclusion of women from every profession.The same argument has been used against those of other races and religions .
It has never been far distant when the geek talks about outsourcing his work to India.Microsoft seems to care about this stuff : Women at Microsoft [ microsoft.com ] , Women 's Leadership Conference [ conference-board.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...that if women aren't highly represented in these endeavors, it might be a sign that women just aren't interested in the same damn things that men are?!
The same argument has been made historically to explain - and justify - the exclusion of women from every profession.The same argument has been used against those of other races and religions.
It has never been far distant when the geek talks about outsourcing his work to India.Microsoft seems to care about this stuff: Women at Microsoft [microsoft.com], Women's Leadership Conference [conference-board.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053520</id>
	<title>Re:Does it ever occur to anybody...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265569560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...that if women aren't highly represented in these endeavors, it might be a sign that <i>women just aren't interested in the same damn things that men are</i>?!</p><p>Sheesh!</p></div><p>Thank you!  Finally, someone said it.  I mean seriously, would it come as a complete and utter shock sending Jesse Jackson on some sort of sexist/racist rant if he discovered that there were no men in the R&amp;D department of Tampax?  What, no male editors for Womens Fitness?!?  Gee, there's only one female master mechanic in the tri-county area near my home?</p><p>Some jobs are simply NOT appealing to women, period.  It's not that they couldn't do the job.  And I really get sick and tired of this kind of comparison being brought up every few months like we SHOULD be seriously worried about what gender sits behind a company instead of worrying about how good a given business plan is.  The dot-bomb era was NOT because of gender imbalance in tech, management, or VC.</p><p>And don't even think about pulling the racist/sexist card these days.  A woman sits in the most powerful seat in Congress and a black man is running the United States.  That speaks volumes from where we have come from in just a few decades.  Bottom line is if a business plan is sound enough, a 12-year old could get funding.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...that if women are n't highly represented in these endeavors , it might be a sign that women just are n't interested in the same damn things that men are ?
! Sheesh ! Thank you !
Finally , someone said it .
I mean seriously , would it come as a complete and utter shock sending Jesse Jackson on some sort of sexist/racist rant if he discovered that there were no men in the R&amp;D department of Tampax ?
What , no male editors for Womens Fitness ? ! ?
Gee , there 's only one female master mechanic in the tri-county area near my home ? Some jobs are simply NOT appealing to women , period .
It 's not that they could n't do the job .
And I really get sick and tired of this kind of comparison being brought up every few months like we SHOULD be seriously worried about what gender sits behind a company instead of worrying about how good a given business plan is .
The dot-bomb era was NOT because of gender imbalance in tech , management , or VC.And do n't even think about pulling the racist/sexist card these days .
A woman sits in the most powerful seat in Congress and a black man is running the United States .
That speaks volumes from where we have come from in just a few decades .
Bottom line is if a business plan is sound enough , a 12-year old could get funding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...that if women aren't highly represented in these endeavors, it might be a sign that women just aren't interested in the same damn things that men are?
!Sheesh!Thank you!
Finally, someone said it.
I mean seriously, would it come as a complete and utter shock sending Jesse Jackson on some sort of sexist/racist rant if he discovered that there were no men in the R&amp;D department of Tampax?
What, no male editors for Womens Fitness?!?
Gee, there's only one female master mechanic in the tri-county area near my home?Some jobs are simply NOT appealing to women, period.
It's not that they couldn't do the job.
And I really get sick and tired of this kind of comparison being brought up every few months like we SHOULD be seriously worried about what gender sits behind a company instead of worrying about how good a given business plan is.
The dot-bomb era was NOT because of gender imbalance in tech, management, or VC.And don't even think about pulling the racist/sexist card these days.
A woman sits in the most powerful seat in Congress and a black man is running the United States.
That speaks volumes from where we have come from in just a few decades.
Bottom line is if a business plan is sound enough, a 12-year old could get funding.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053522</id>
	<title>Carol Bartz.</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1265569560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Carol Bartz.  CEO of Autodesk, where she did well, then Yahoo, where she inherited a mess and isn't doing too well so far.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Carol Bartz .
CEO of Autodesk , where she did well , then Yahoo , where she inherited a mess and is n't doing too well so far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Carol Bartz.
CEO of Autodesk, where she did well, then Yahoo, where she inherited a mess and isn't doing too well so far.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31056328</id>
	<title>DrScience</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265548620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One only needs to think in terms of how evolution performs.<br>Do you really think nature would favor the skills of risk-taking,<br>strategy and tool-making for a mother caring for a helpless newborn?</p><p>And why wouldn't nature give to males a strong propensity  to<br>provide, by using strategy, calculated risk-taking, and tool use to<br>bring home the sustenance (animal flesh).</p><p>I have no apologies for nature, testosterone and estrogen have<br>profound affects on how are brains individually developed . Life<br>is about reproductive advantage, we had to specialize, or we<br>would be here.  Of course there are exceptions.</p><p>"Life is an excise in exceptions" (JLP, StarTrek).</p><p>We are all curious about the rarity of everything!</p><p>"Nature is not absolute regarding boundaries" (That's me right now!),<br>there will always be exceptions!  That's why "statistics" is "thee most"<br>value tool to science.</p><p>The bigger question is: Why does society expect both sexes to preform<br>equally in everything?   I would be inclined to think that if anyone is<br>insulted by a disparity in gender business ownership, STATISTICALLY,<br>should read some peer reviewed science. The data supporting this<br>opinion has been available for many decades.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One only needs to think in terms of how evolution performs.Do you really think nature would favor the skills of risk-taking,strategy and tool-making for a mother caring for a helpless newborn ? And why would n't nature give to males a strong propensity toprovide , by using strategy , calculated risk-taking , and tool use tobring home the sustenance ( animal flesh ) .I have no apologies for nature , testosterone and estrogen haveprofound affects on how are brains individually developed .
Lifeis about reproductive advantage , we had to specialize , or wewould be here .
Of course there are exceptions .
" Life is an excise in exceptions " ( JLP , StarTrek ) .We are all curious about the rarity of everything !
" Nature is not absolute regarding boundaries " ( That 's me right now !
) ,there will always be exceptions !
That 's why " statistics " is " thee most " value tool to science.The bigger question is : Why does society expect both sexes to preformequally in everything ?
I would be inclined to think that if anyone isinsulted by a disparity in gender business ownership , STATISTICALLY,should read some peer reviewed science .
The data supporting thisopinion has been available for many decades .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One only needs to think in terms of how evolution performs.Do you really think nature would favor the skills of risk-taking,strategy and tool-making for a mother caring for a helpless newborn?And why wouldn't nature give to males a strong propensity  toprovide, by using strategy, calculated risk-taking, and tool use tobring home the sustenance (animal flesh).I have no apologies for nature, testosterone and estrogen haveprofound affects on how are brains individually developed .
Lifeis about reproductive advantage, we had to specialize, or wewould be here.
Of course there are exceptions.
"Life is an excise in exceptions" (JLP, StarTrek).We are all curious about the rarity of everything!
"Nature is not absolute regarding boundaries" (That's me right now!
),there will always be exceptions!
That's why "statistics" is "thee most"value tool to science.The bigger question is: Why does society expect both sexes to preformequally in everything?
I would be inclined to think that if anyone isinsulted by a disparity in gender business ownership, STATISTICALLY,should read some peer reviewed science.
The data supporting thisopinion has been available for many decades.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053368</id>
	<title>Carli Fiorina</title>
	<author>c.r.o.c.o</author>
	<datestamp>1265568480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm trying to come up with something witty to say, but the only woman CEO that comes to mind is Carli Fiorina. That worked out well for HP...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm trying to come up with something witty to say , but the only woman CEO that comes to mind is Carli Fiorina .
That worked out well for HP.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm trying to come up with something witty to say, but the only woman CEO that comes to mind is Carli Fiorina.
That worked out well for HP...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053358</id>
	<title>A bit sensationalized, with a grain of truth</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265568420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple doesn't have any women among its top executives, and neither does AMD. But HP has 3 of the top 10, Intel has 3 of the top 15, Amazon has 2 of 12. Not a stellar performance by any means, but not a complete absence either. This seems to be one area where Ms. Fiorina had a positive impact on HP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple does n't have any women among its top executives , and neither does AMD .
But HP has 3 of the top 10 , Intel has 3 of the top 15 , Amazon has 2 of 12 .
Not a stellar performance by any means , but not a complete absence either .
This seems to be one area where Ms. Fiorina had a positive impact on HP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple doesn't have any women among its top executives, and neither does AMD.
But HP has 3 of the top 10, Intel has 3 of the top 15, Amazon has 2 of 12.
Not a stellar performance by any means, but not a complete absence either.
This seems to be one area where Ms. Fiorina had a positive impact on HP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053322</id>
	<title>its all relative</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265568060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The proportion of women to men that are convicted sex offenders, ravecar drivers, welders, etc is quite low also. Is this sexual discrimination or is this differences in motivations? The prportions of testosterone to estrogen is quite different also, am I the only one that can see that hormones may be to blame?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The proportion of women to men that are convicted sex offenders , ravecar drivers , welders , etc is quite low also .
Is this sexual discrimination or is this differences in motivations ?
The prportions of testosterone to estrogen is quite different also , am I the only one that can see that hormones may be to blame ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The proportion of women to men that are convicted sex offenders, ravecar drivers, welders, etc is quite low also.
Is this sexual discrimination or is this differences in motivations?
The prportions of testosterone to estrogen is quite different also, am I the only one that can see that hormones may be to blame?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31057524</id>
	<title>Re:Does it ever occur to anybody...</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1265560380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A woman sits in the most powerful seat in Congress and a black man is running the United States.</p></div><p>Welcome to equality theater. Hilary wasn't permitted to even speak as the First Lady until she gave up on public health and took a shitload of big pharma's money. Don't even get me started on Obama. His most important promises have been reneged upon. I won't pretend it's the majority of promises, it's just little things like pulling out of the middle east. Leave for another conversation whether that would be a good thing or not.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A woman sits in the most powerful seat in Congress and a black man is running the United States.Welcome to equality theater .
Hilary was n't permitted to even speak as the First Lady until she gave up on public health and took a shitload of big pharma 's money .
Do n't even get me started on Obama .
His most important promises have been reneged upon .
I wo n't pretend it 's the majority of promises , it 's just little things like pulling out of the middle east .
Leave for another conversation whether that would be a good thing or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A woman sits in the most powerful seat in Congress and a black man is running the United States.Welcome to equality theater.
Hilary wasn't permitted to even speak as the First Lady until she gave up on public health and took a shitload of big pharma's money.
Don't even get me started on Obama.
His most important promises have been reneged upon.
I won't pretend it's the majority of promises, it's just little things like pulling out of the middle east.
Leave for another conversation whether that would be a good thing or not.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053388</id>
	<title>Re:Does it ever occur to anybody...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265568600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are plenty of women who are interested, but there is a glass ceiling in place which makes it effectively impossible for them to rise high up in the ranks.</p><p>You sound like you haven't spoken to any women who are interested in rising through the management ranks.  There are *plenty*.  Talk to some of them about the glass ceiling, and maybe you'll understand.  It's very much still a good ole' boy's club out there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are plenty of women who are interested , but there is a glass ceiling in place which makes it effectively impossible for them to rise high up in the ranks.You sound like you have n't spoken to any women who are interested in rising through the management ranks .
There are * plenty * .
Talk to some of them about the glass ceiling , and maybe you 'll understand .
It 's very much still a good ole ' boy 's club out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are plenty of women who are interested, but there is a glass ceiling in place which makes it effectively impossible for them to rise high up in the ranks.You sound like you haven't spoken to any women who are interested in rising through the management ranks.
There are *plenty*.
Talk to some of them about the glass ceiling, and maybe you'll understand.
It's very much still a good ole' boy's club out there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053550</id>
	<title>News Flash!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265569920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Men and women aren't equal. They are equivalent. That difference is important because it means that they don't have to perform/achieve the same functions/goals. Remember Newton's law about equal and opposite? If a woman really wants to do a traditionally male role, fine. If a man wants to do a traditionally female role, fine. To complain that they tend to fall into separate categories of their own will is stupid and political correctness bullcrap. Sure there are instances where discrimination plays a role, but I firmly believe that the largest reason that there aren't many women in positions like this is because there aren't many women who want them and of those that want them, there are less that are qualified for them. That might (actually, it probably will) change in the future with different generations coming of age, but trying to throw legislation at it is a mistake. Affirmative action and hiring quotas just hurt everyone eventually because it means scraping the bottom of the barrel for someone who fits your quota even if they absolutely suck at the job role. <br> <br> I am a hetero male going into a nursing career. I chose that because I decided that I didn't want to make a career out of my tech hobbies and thus ruin my hobby. I wanted something outside a cubicle and that I could be proud of helping others. I've faced plenty of my own gender stereotypes and it annoys me when someone comments how they need more men in nursing or similar rubbish. Not many guys are interested in it and there is nothing that *should* be done about it. Its just the way things are. I sincerely hope that I never get hired just because I'm a minority in the field.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Men and women are n't equal .
They are equivalent .
That difference is important because it means that they do n't have to perform/achieve the same functions/goals .
Remember Newton 's law about equal and opposite ?
If a woman really wants to do a traditionally male role , fine .
If a man wants to do a traditionally female role , fine .
To complain that they tend to fall into separate categories of their own will is stupid and political correctness bullcrap .
Sure there are instances where discrimination plays a role , but I firmly believe that the largest reason that there are n't many women in positions like this is because there are n't many women who want them and of those that want them , there are less that are qualified for them .
That might ( actually , it probably will ) change in the future with different generations coming of age , but trying to throw legislation at it is a mistake .
Affirmative action and hiring quotas just hurt everyone eventually because it means scraping the bottom of the barrel for someone who fits your quota even if they absolutely suck at the job role .
I am a hetero male going into a nursing career .
I chose that because I decided that I did n't want to make a career out of my tech hobbies and thus ruin my hobby .
I wanted something outside a cubicle and that I could be proud of helping others .
I 've faced plenty of my own gender stereotypes and it annoys me when someone comments how they need more men in nursing or similar rubbish .
Not many guys are interested in it and there is nothing that * should * be done about it .
Its just the way things are .
I sincerely hope that I never get hired just because I 'm a minority in the field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Men and women aren't equal.
They are equivalent.
That difference is important because it means that they don't have to perform/achieve the same functions/goals.
Remember Newton's law about equal and opposite?
If a woman really wants to do a traditionally male role, fine.
If a man wants to do a traditionally female role, fine.
To complain that they tend to fall into separate categories of their own will is stupid and political correctness bullcrap.
Sure there are instances where discrimination plays a role, but I firmly believe that the largest reason that there aren't many women in positions like this is because there aren't many women who want them and of those that want them, there are less that are qualified for them.
That might (actually, it probably will) change in the future with different generations coming of age, but trying to throw legislation at it is a mistake.
Affirmative action and hiring quotas just hurt everyone eventually because it means scraping the bottom of the barrel for someone who fits your quota even if they absolutely suck at the job role.
I am a hetero male going into a nursing career.
I chose that because I decided that I didn't want to make a career out of my tech hobbies and thus ruin my hobby.
I wanted something outside a cubicle and that I could be proud of helping others.
I've faced plenty of my own gender stereotypes and it annoys me when someone comments how they need more men in nursing or similar rubbish.
Not many guys are interested in it and there is nothing that *should* be done about it.
Its just the way things are.
I sincerely hope that I never get hired just because I'm a minority in the field.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053130</id>
	<title>A view from 50,000 feet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265566680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, I guess I should get in here before it gets really bad. I'm a PhD student who studies entrepreneurship, so I've read a bit on the topic of gender discrimination and difference in entrepreneurship. In fact, I'm writing this instead of working on the lit review of my research proposal. There is plenty of evidence that women are discriminated when they look for loans or investments. A good read is Blake 2006 "Gendered Lending: Gender, Context and the Rules of Business Lending" in Venture Capital 8(2) pp. 183-201. Basisiaclly, there are pretty large, statistically signifigant, differences in loan approval rates between men and women, after controling for a host of factors like education, business plan, experience ect. Plenty of women applying for loans for high-tech businesses were told by the banker to instead start more traditionally women-oriented businesses like salons or clothes stores. On the venture capital side, access to venture capital is heavily dependent on social networks, if most venture capialists are men, then women will have a harder time getting into these networks. The old boys network still does exist, and it's hard to break in to.</p><p>But why does this matter? The fact is that entrepreneurship is the only way that the American economy is going to grow. This is the best feature of our economy. So sure, I agree that women might not be equally as interested in entering the technical fields as men (though I'd say this is due in large part to implicit and explicit discrimination rather than anything biological). But we need all the entrepreneurs we can get. If women, who as you recall make up half the population, can't get a fair shake at starting high-tech firms poised for fast growth and export-base sales. we're doing the economy a disservice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , I guess I should get in here before it gets really bad .
I 'm a PhD student who studies entrepreneurship , so I 've read a bit on the topic of gender discrimination and difference in entrepreneurship .
In fact , I 'm writing this instead of working on the lit review of my research proposal .
There is plenty of evidence that women are discriminated when they look for loans or investments .
A good read is Blake 2006 " Gendered Lending : Gender , Context and the Rules of Business Lending " in Venture Capital 8 ( 2 ) pp .
183-201. Basisiaclly , there are pretty large , statistically signifigant , differences in loan approval rates between men and women , after controling for a host of factors like education , business plan , experience ect .
Plenty of women applying for loans for high-tech businesses were told by the banker to instead start more traditionally women-oriented businesses like salons or clothes stores .
On the venture capital side , access to venture capital is heavily dependent on social networks , if most venture capialists are men , then women will have a harder time getting into these networks .
The old boys network still does exist , and it 's hard to break in to.But why does this matter ?
The fact is that entrepreneurship is the only way that the American economy is going to grow .
This is the best feature of our economy .
So sure , I agree that women might not be equally as interested in entering the technical fields as men ( though I 'd say this is due in large part to implicit and explicit discrimination rather than anything biological ) .
But we need all the entrepreneurs we can get .
If women , who as you recall make up half the population , ca n't get a fair shake at starting high-tech firms poised for fast growth and export-base sales .
we 're doing the economy a disservice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, I guess I should get in here before it gets really bad.
I'm a PhD student who studies entrepreneurship, so I've read a bit on the topic of gender discrimination and difference in entrepreneurship.
In fact, I'm writing this instead of working on the lit review of my research proposal.
There is plenty of evidence that women are discriminated when they look for loans or investments.
A good read is Blake 2006 "Gendered Lending: Gender, Context and the Rules of Business Lending" in Venture Capital 8(2) pp.
183-201. Basisiaclly, there are pretty large, statistically signifigant, differences in loan approval rates between men and women, after controling for a host of factors like education, business plan, experience ect.
Plenty of women applying for loans for high-tech businesses were told by the banker to instead start more traditionally women-oriented businesses like salons or clothes stores.
On the venture capital side, access to venture capital is heavily dependent on social networks, if most venture capialists are men, then women will have a harder time getting into these networks.
The old boys network still does exist, and it's hard to break in to.But why does this matter?
The fact is that entrepreneurship is the only way that the American economy is going to grow.
This is the best feature of our economy.
So sure, I agree that women might not be equally as interested in entering the technical fields as men (though I'd say this is due in large part to implicit and explicit discrimination rather than anything biological).
But we need all the entrepreneurs we can get.
If women, who as you recall make up half the population, can't get a fair shake at starting high-tech firms poised for fast growth and export-base sales.
we're doing the economy a disservice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053702</id>
	<title>Men are Riskier</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265571360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Venture capitalists are risktakers. Tech top execs are risktakers. Overall execs are risktakers. Taking risks tends to send people to the extremes of their groups, bigger winners or bigger losers. Men tend to be at the top of professions, but also at the bottom, and in the lowest jobs, and without income at all. Men are much more likely to be injured by their jobs, to have risky jobs, and live shorter lives.</p><p>Women tend to take fewer and less extreme risks, and tend to be in the middle of achievement, but more reliably achieve minimum standards of living.</p><p>Biologically men are more expendable. Aggression gets more rewards, but it also takes more damage. The limiting factor on human population growth is the number of women, while even one man can produce an entire generation among all the women.</p><p>There are social conventions held over from less developed societies that work to hold women back. And the bias towards training men to take risks and be expendable is an unfair gender bias now that the biological value isn't what determines social value.</p><p>So long as risktaking is so different between men and women, rewardtaking is going to be similarly different. We could get closer to our inherent value regardless of gender's arbitrary constraints if we stopped ignoring the gender behavior that we are free to change, but don't, that affects success. And if we stopped ignoring the costs to either gender that come with either the achievement or the risktaking that underlies it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Venture capitalists are risktakers .
Tech top execs are risktakers .
Overall execs are risktakers .
Taking risks tends to send people to the extremes of their groups , bigger winners or bigger losers .
Men tend to be at the top of professions , but also at the bottom , and in the lowest jobs , and without income at all .
Men are much more likely to be injured by their jobs , to have risky jobs , and live shorter lives.Women tend to take fewer and less extreme risks , and tend to be in the middle of achievement , but more reliably achieve minimum standards of living.Biologically men are more expendable .
Aggression gets more rewards , but it also takes more damage .
The limiting factor on human population growth is the number of women , while even one man can produce an entire generation among all the women.There are social conventions held over from less developed societies that work to hold women back .
And the bias towards training men to take risks and be expendable is an unfair gender bias now that the biological value is n't what determines social value.So long as risktaking is so different between men and women , rewardtaking is going to be similarly different .
We could get closer to our inherent value regardless of gender 's arbitrary constraints if we stopped ignoring the gender behavior that we are free to change , but do n't , that affects success .
And if we stopped ignoring the costs to either gender that come with either the achievement or the risktaking that underlies it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Venture capitalists are risktakers.
Tech top execs are risktakers.
Overall execs are risktakers.
Taking risks tends to send people to the extremes of their groups, bigger winners or bigger losers.
Men tend to be at the top of professions, but also at the bottom, and in the lowest jobs, and without income at all.
Men are much more likely to be injured by their jobs, to have risky jobs, and live shorter lives.Women tend to take fewer and less extreme risks, and tend to be in the middle of achievement, but more reliably achieve minimum standards of living.Biologically men are more expendable.
Aggression gets more rewards, but it also takes more damage.
The limiting factor on human population growth is the number of women, while even one man can produce an entire generation among all the women.There are social conventions held over from less developed societies that work to hold women back.
And the bias towards training men to take risks and be expendable is an unfair gender bias now that the biological value isn't what determines social value.So long as risktaking is so different between men and women, rewardtaking is going to be similarly different.
We could get closer to our inherent value regardless of gender's arbitrary constraints if we stopped ignoring the gender behavior that we are free to change, but don't, that affects success.
And if we stopped ignoring the costs to either gender that come with either the achievement or the risktaking that underlies it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31059262</id>
	<title>Re:Does it ever occur to anybody...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265628300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Some jobs are simply NOT appealing to women, period.</p></div><p>Way to bring up the periods, you insensitive clod!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some jobs are simply NOT appealing to women , period.Way to bring up the periods , you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some jobs are simply NOT appealing to women, period.Way to bring up the periods, you insensitive clod!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31054346</id>
	<title>Lack of male kindergarten teachers?</title>
	<author>HockeyPuck</author>
	<datestamp>1265533920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why don't we see articles about a lack of male nurses or male kindergarten teachers?  I would bet there are far fewer male kindergarten teachers compared to female kindergarten teachers than there is male vs female VC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't we see articles about a lack of male nurses or male kindergarten teachers ?
I would bet there are far fewer male kindergarten teachers compared to female kindergarten teachers than there is male vs female VC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't we see articles about a lack of male nurses or male kindergarten teachers?
I would bet there are far fewer male kindergarten teachers compared to female kindergarten teachers than there is male vs female VC.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053784</id>
	<title>Re:Women in technology?</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1265572320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There are few men in primary or secondary education, nursing, or child care.</p></div> </blockquote><p>That's because these days, if a man can't prove for certain that he isn't, he's automatically guilty of being a peadiofiddlder if he even thinks about doing any of those jobs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are few men in primary or secondary education , nursing , or child care .
That 's because these days , if a man ca n't prove for certain that he is n't , he 's automatically guilty of being a peadiofiddlder if he even thinks about doing any of those jobs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are few men in primary or secondary education, nursing, or child care.
That's because these days, if a man can't prove for certain that he isn't, he's automatically guilty of being a peadiofiddlder if he even thinks about doing any of those jobs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053882</id>
	<title>Re:Does it ever occur to anybody...</title>
	<author>caywen</author>
	<datestamp>1265573340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or, it's also a sign that a significant number of women choose to have children and decide not to return to their profession. Men who have kids, OTOH, tend to get a career boost (for a large number of subtle reasons).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , it 's also a sign that a significant number of women choose to have children and decide not to return to their profession .
Men who have kids , OTOH , tend to get a career boost ( for a large number of subtle reasons ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, it's also a sign that a significant number of women choose to have children and decide not to return to their profession.
Men who have kids, OTOH, tend to get a career boost (for a large number of subtle reasons).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053736</id>
	<title>Re:So what</title>
	<author>dsoltesz</author>
	<datestamp>1265571720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You should consider hiring a food taster.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You should consider hiring a food taster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should consider hiring a food taster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31083358</id>
	<title>Re:it takes time</title>
	<author>PastaLover</author>
	<datestamp>1265019060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Silicon Valley is a meritocracy.  People who get put in positions that they don't deserve, just because of their skin color or their gender might hold the title, but won't hold the respect or the credibility.</p></div><p>You've not worked in the tech sector very long if you haven't met any men who seem to think women are inferior at science/maths/technology. Prejudice still exists and it's certainly not as pure a meritocracy as you seem to think. Furthermore, how many people (women) don't even try because they've been told (implicitly or explicitly) throughout their lives that they're not good enough? Perhaps you are right that eventually the imbalance will even itself out, but how many generations will that take if we don't signal to young girls and women that there is no reason a woman can't go into technology?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Silicon Valley is a meritocracy .
People who get put in positions that they do n't deserve , just because of their skin color or their gender might hold the title , but wo n't hold the respect or the credibility.You 've not worked in the tech sector very long if you have n't met any men who seem to think women are inferior at science/maths/technology .
Prejudice still exists and it 's certainly not as pure a meritocracy as you seem to think .
Furthermore , how many people ( women ) do n't even try because they 've been told ( implicitly or explicitly ) throughout their lives that they 're not good enough ?
Perhaps you are right that eventually the imbalance will even itself out , but how many generations will that take if we do n't signal to young girls and women that there is no reason a woman ca n't go into technology ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Silicon Valley is a meritocracy.
People who get put in positions that they don't deserve, just because of their skin color or their gender might hold the title, but won't hold the respect or the credibility.You've not worked in the tech sector very long if you haven't met any men who seem to think women are inferior at science/maths/technology.
Prejudice still exists and it's certainly not as pure a meritocracy as you seem to think.
Furthermore, how many people (women) don't even try because they've been told (implicitly or explicitly) throughout their lives that they're not good enough?
Perhaps you are right that eventually the imbalance will even itself out, but how many generations will that take if we don't signal to young girls and women that there is no reason a woman can't go into technology?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31056316</id>
	<title>Re:As expected</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1265548380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If you believe that sociopaths are more likely to become effective CEOs, as has been claimed</i></p><p>Actually, what has been empirically demonstrated is that sociopaths are more likely to become CEOs, not that they are effective--they are not.  The question that motivated the research was, "How come all these ineffective assholes are running these big companies?"  The answer is:  self-aggrandizing jerks are just the kind of people who are successful in clawing and manipulating their way into CEO positions, where they act like self-aggrandizing jerks, much to everyone's surprise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you believe that sociopaths are more likely to become effective CEOs , as has been claimedActually , what has been empirically demonstrated is that sociopaths are more likely to become CEOs , not that they are effective--they are not .
The question that motivated the research was , " How come all these ineffective assholes are running these big companies ?
" The answer is : self-aggrandizing jerks are just the kind of people who are successful in clawing and manipulating their way into CEO positions , where they act like self-aggrandizing jerks , much to everyone 's surprise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you believe that sociopaths are more likely to become effective CEOs, as has been claimedActually, what has been empirically demonstrated is that sociopaths are more likely to become CEOs, not that they are effective--they are not.
The question that motivated the research was, "How come all these ineffective assholes are running these big companies?
"  The answer is:  self-aggrandizing jerks are just the kind of people who are successful in clawing and manipulating their way into CEO positions, where they act like self-aggrandizing jerks, much to everyone's surprise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053212</id>
	<title>Re:Testosterone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265567040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Economist carried an article to that effect recently:  <a href="http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displaystory.cfm?story\_id=14301951" title="economist.com" rel="nofollow">"Hormones, not sexism, explain why fewer women than men work in banks"</a> [economist.com] <br>
<br>
Also, one should take note of the following considerations about <a href="http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm" title="fsu.edu" rel="nofollow">how different variance in willingness to take risks can explain the effect and why we should start to also look at the bottom of the society.</a> [fsu.edu]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Economist carried an article to that effect recently : " Hormones , not sexism , explain why fewer women than men work in banks " [ economist.com ] Also , one should take note of the following considerations about how different variance in willingness to take risks can explain the effect and why we should start to also look at the bottom of the society .
[ fsu.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Economist carried an article to that effect recently:  "Hormones, not sexism, explain why fewer women than men work in banks" [economist.com] 

Also, one should take note of the following considerations about how different variance in willingness to take risks can explain the effect and why we should start to also look at the bottom of the society.
[fsu.edu]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053586</id>
	<title>I RTFA(bstract)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265570220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>There is plenty of evidence that women are discriminated when they look for loans or investments. A good read is Blake 2006 "Gendered Lending: Gender, Context and the Rules of Business Lending" in Venture Capital 8(2) pp. 183-201. Basisiaclly, there are pretty large, statistically signifigant, differences in loan approval rates between men and women, after controling for a host of factors like education, business plan, experience ect.</i>

</p><p>I have looked up that study and I must say that I find the statements here a bit misleading.  The <a href="http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a746067329" title="informaworld.com">abstract</a> [informaworld.com] says it is "a <b>case study</b> involving interview data from loan officers in Worcester, Massachusetts in the US".  While a case study can be interesting for other reasons, statistically speaking it's on the level of anecdotal evidence.  Furthermore this study "[looks] through the lens of geography" (presumably because the author works for a Department of Geography).  Hard to extrapolate from such a tiny sample of VC lending in the USA, isn't it?

</p><p>So you say that there is "plenty of evidence that women are discriminated" and "statistically significant differences", and in the same breath you mention a study that doesn't support what you just said because it's not statistically significant.  If there is plenty of evidence why not pick a study that supports your rather strong statement?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is plenty of evidence that women are discriminated when they look for loans or investments .
A good read is Blake 2006 " Gendered Lending : Gender , Context and the Rules of Business Lending " in Venture Capital 8 ( 2 ) pp .
183-201. Basisiaclly , there are pretty large , statistically signifigant , differences in loan approval rates between men and women , after controling for a host of factors like education , business plan , experience ect .
I have looked up that study and I must say that I find the statements here a bit misleading .
The abstract [ informaworld.com ] says it is " a case study involving interview data from loan officers in Worcester , Massachusetts in the US " .
While a case study can be interesting for other reasons , statistically speaking it 's on the level of anecdotal evidence .
Furthermore this study " [ looks ] through the lens of geography " ( presumably because the author works for a Department of Geography ) .
Hard to extrapolate from such a tiny sample of VC lending in the USA , is n't it ?
So you say that there is " plenty of evidence that women are discriminated " and " statistically significant differences " , and in the same breath you mention a study that does n't support what you just said because it 's not statistically significant .
If there is plenty of evidence why not pick a study that supports your rather strong statement ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> There is plenty of evidence that women are discriminated when they look for loans or investments.
A good read is Blake 2006 "Gendered Lending: Gender, Context and the Rules of Business Lending" in Venture Capital 8(2) pp.
183-201. Basisiaclly, there are pretty large, statistically signifigant, differences in loan approval rates between men and women, after controling for a host of factors like education, business plan, experience ect.
I have looked up that study and I must say that I find the statements here a bit misleading.
The abstract [informaworld.com] says it is "a case study involving interview data from loan officers in Worcester, Massachusetts in the US".
While a case study can be interesting for other reasons, statistically speaking it's on the level of anecdotal evidence.
Furthermore this study "[looks] through the lens of geography" (presumably because the author works for a Department of Geography).
Hard to extrapolate from such a tiny sample of VC lending in the USA, isn't it?
So you say that there is "plenty of evidence that women are discriminated" and "statistically significant differences", and in the same breath you mention a study that doesn't support what you just said because it's not statistically significant.
If there is plenty of evidence why not pick a study that supports your rather strong statement?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053386</id>
	<title>Re:Does it ever occur to anybody...</title>
	<author>0100010001010011</author>
	<datestamp>1265568600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm still upset at the misrepresented number of pregnant men.</p><p>Seriously. 100\% of females? I demand the government setup research to right this inequality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm still upset at the misrepresented number of pregnant men.Seriously .
100 \ % of females ?
I demand the government setup research to right this inequality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm still upset at the misrepresented number of pregnant men.Seriously.
100\% of females?
I demand the government setup research to right this inequality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31061594</id>
	<title>Re:Does it ever occur to anybody...</title>
	<author>Kattspya</author>
	<datestamp>1265650800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you look at history you will find that demands of equality has led to a hundred million dead or so in communist dictatorships...</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you look at history you will find that demands of equality has led to a hundred million dead or so in communist dictatorships.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you look at history you will find that demands of equality has led to a hundred million dead or so in communist dictatorships...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053206</id>
	<title>it takes time</title>
	<author>CPE1704TKS</author>
	<datestamp>1265566980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Silicon Valley is a meritocracy.  People who get put in positions that they don't deserve, just because of their skin color or their gender might hold the title, but won't hold the respect or the credibility.</p><p>I know plenty of females that are competent in terms of technology.  But the ones who are in leadership positions right now started out in tech 20+ years ago.  They were the first wave.  Now, we have more females in the general ranks, and they will filter their way up.  But it takes time.</p><p>Force-feeding gender equality in a meritocracy won't work.  They have to earn it just like everyone else.  And when they do, no one will blink an eye or care, because everyone will think they deserve it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Silicon Valley is a meritocracy .
People who get put in positions that they do n't deserve , just because of their skin color or their gender might hold the title , but wo n't hold the respect or the credibility.I know plenty of females that are competent in terms of technology .
But the ones who are in leadership positions right now started out in tech 20 + years ago .
They were the first wave .
Now , we have more females in the general ranks , and they will filter their way up .
But it takes time.Force-feeding gender equality in a meritocracy wo n't work .
They have to earn it just like everyone else .
And when they do , no one will blink an eye or care , because everyone will think they deserve it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Silicon Valley is a meritocracy.
People who get put in positions that they don't deserve, just because of their skin color or their gender might hold the title, but won't hold the respect or the credibility.I know plenty of females that are competent in terms of technology.
But the ones who are in leadership positions right now started out in tech 20+ years ago.
They were the first wave.
Now, we have more females in the general ranks, and they will filter their way up.
But it takes time.Force-feeding gender equality in a meritocracy won't work.
They have to earn it just like everyone else.
And when they do, no one will blink an eye or care, because everyone will think they deserve it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053924</id>
	<title>Re:A view from 50,000 feet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265573640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quick question; does that text cover non-verbal communication and drive?<br>In competition for limited resources (and finance is limited), in general, the system favours equal candidates who also seem to have the drive and ruthlessness to close a deal.  Business can be (and frequently is in a competitive environment) very cut throat (I speak from experience on that).<br>Again, going back to generalisations (there are of course significant exceptions to every rule), men are conditioned at an instinctual level to be more aggressive than women.  This makes for a more aggressive stance on obtaining the limited resources.</p><p>The option, of course, is to alter the structure of western business such that drive and ruthlessness are removed from the equation, and lesser resources are allocated to each business (i.e. not enough to actually meet what the business plan says is necessary to fund the business to a successfull running point from start) as a result.  End point being the ruthless have to become more so.</p><p>Again, of interest, did the chap who wrote that book actually sit with front line business bankers, and ask why the judgements were made in the way they were, or was it all down to the paper business plans and statistics (hint for you, a large part of the loan process, certainly for startup sums, is done outside the world of paper; the business plan is a checkbox to make sure you've actually thought about what you're doing.  The rest is the banker making a judgement of whether they believe you have the drive and ruthlessness to make money from their gamble).</p><p>Also, is there a statistical deviation for age?  Finance (and business by and large) are wary of the fact that a large portion of women want a family.  A statistically significant portion of these have their outlook on life changed by having a child, and are more likely to want to hold a job that lets them spend more time with the child/family, rather than a high tech job that eats time like no other.</p><p>Another thing:  Trends analysis.  What do the trends show as far as women in these roles are concerned?  Growing slowly by and large (with the odd few trend bucks when resources get extra tight)?  That's evolution.  A stable society will alter over the course of generations.  For some reason, everyone expects this to level out to an even split (which it will never do, unless, of course, you want to dissuade women from doing the types of roles that women actually seem to prefer, such as nursing, medical, biotech, and other more historically female oriented roles.  That's the only way to free up enough of the population to make things 'equal', as statistically, you only have a portion of people to be in one area that haven't already chosen something else.  If they've already chosen something else, then with equal chance, there's going to be a significant statistical bias in set population).</p><p>Personally, I'm behind anyone of any sex (and there are several listed in the medical status) doing whatever role they'd like to do.  They just need to prove they're good at it, and over time, you'll see the demographics shift of their own accord to new equilibriums (check the population in medical, for example; it's becoming quite female weighted these days as far as doctors go).  Don't expect to wave a magic wand, and set quotas for female loans and so on, as that'll only set up for a backlash (and in the interim make for a wasteful use of resources, as  being held to a lower standard due to quotas, you won't necessarily make best use of money).</p><p>Really, from being in the world of business for some time, and seeing how things are changing at the small business end, sure, keep taps for real abuses of the system, but let them evolve.  Society shapes its own boundaries, but it's never a fast process.  Watch the changes, and follow to see where the trends are pointing.</p><p>Oh, and a last point, the "old boys networks" aren't that hard to get into.  Usually, you need a good few solid wins behind you, and they're canny enough to know they'd kinda like you on side, so they talk to you...  If you go chasing after them, it can be notoriously difficult (unless, again, you get those wins on your side).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quick question ; does that text cover non-verbal communication and drive ? In competition for limited resources ( and finance is limited ) , in general , the system favours equal candidates who also seem to have the drive and ruthlessness to close a deal .
Business can be ( and frequently is in a competitive environment ) very cut throat ( I speak from experience on that ) .Again , going back to generalisations ( there are of course significant exceptions to every rule ) , men are conditioned at an instinctual level to be more aggressive than women .
This makes for a more aggressive stance on obtaining the limited resources.The option , of course , is to alter the structure of western business such that drive and ruthlessness are removed from the equation , and lesser resources are allocated to each business ( i.e .
not enough to actually meet what the business plan says is necessary to fund the business to a successfull running point from start ) as a result .
End point being the ruthless have to become more so.Again , of interest , did the chap who wrote that book actually sit with front line business bankers , and ask why the judgements were made in the way they were , or was it all down to the paper business plans and statistics ( hint for you , a large part of the loan process , certainly for startup sums , is done outside the world of paper ; the business plan is a checkbox to make sure you 've actually thought about what you 're doing .
The rest is the banker making a judgement of whether they believe you have the drive and ruthlessness to make money from their gamble ) .Also , is there a statistical deviation for age ?
Finance ( and business by and large ) are wary of the fact that a large portion of women want a family .
A statistically significant portion of these have their outlook on life changed by having a child , and are more likely to want to hold a job that lets them spend more time with the child/family , rather than a high tech job that eats time like no other.Another thing : Trends analysis .
What do the trends show as far as women in these roles are concerned ?
Growing slowly by and large ( with the odd few trend bucks when resources get extra tight ) ?
That 's evolution .
A stable society will alter over the course of generations .
For some reason , everyone expects this to level out to an even split ( which it will never do , unless , of course , you want to dissuade women from doing the types of roles that women actually seem to prefer , such as nursing , medical , biotech , and other more historically female oriented roles .
That 's the only way to free up enough of the population to make things 'equal ' , as statistically , you only have a portion of people to be in one area that have n't already chosen something else .
If they 've already chosen something else , then with equal chance , there 's going to be a significant statistical bias in set population ) .Personally , I 'm behind anyone of any sex ( and there are several listed in the medical status ) doing whatever role they 'd like to do .
They just need to prove they 're good at it , and over time , you 'll see the demographics shift of their own accord to new equilibriums ( check the population in medical , for example ; it 's becoming quite female weighted these days as far as doctors go ) .
Do n't expect to wave a magic wand , and set quotas for female loans and so on , as that 'll only set up for a backlash ( and in the interim make for a wasteful use of resources , as being held to a lower standard due to quotas , you wo n't necessarily make best use of money ) .Really , from being in the world of business for some time , and seeing how things are changing at the small business end , sure , keep taps for real abuses of the system , but let them evolve .
Society shapes its own boundaries , but it 's never a fast process .
Watch the changes , and follow to see where the trends are pointing.Oh , and a last point , the " old boys networks " are n't that hard to get into .
Usually , you need a good few solid wins behind you , and they 're canny enough to know they 'd kinda like you on side , so they talk to you... If you go chasing after them , it can be notoriously difficult ( unless , again , you get those wins on your side ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quick question; does that text cover non-verbal communication and drive?In competition for limited resources (and finance is limited), in general, the system favours equal candidates who also seem to have the drive and ruthlessness to close a deal.
Business can be (and frequently is in a competitive environment) very cut throat (I speak from experience on that).Again, going back to generalisations (there are of course significant exceptions to every rule), men are conditioned at an instinctual level to be more aggressive than women.
This makes for a more aggressive stance on obtaining the limited resources.The option, of course, is to alter the structure of western business such that drive and ruthlessness are removed from the equation, and lesser resources are allocated to each business (i.e.
not enough to actually meet what the business plan says is necessary to fund the business to a successfull running point from start) as a result.
End point being the ruthless have to become more so.Again, of interest, did the chap who wrote that book actually sit with front line business bankers, and ask why the judgements were made in the way they were, or was it all down to the paper business plans and statistics (hint for you, a large part of the loan process, certainly for startup sums, is done outside the world of paper; the business plan is a checkbox to make sure you've actually thought about what you're doing.
The rest is the banker making a judgement of whether they believe you have the drive and ruthlessness to make money from their gamble).Also, is there a statistical deviation for age?
Finance (and business by and large) are wary of the fact that a large portion of women want a family.
A statistically significant portion of these have their outlook on life changed by having a child, and are more likely to want to hold a job that lets them spend more time with the child/family, rather than a high tech job that eats time like no other.Another thing:  Trends analysis.
What do the trends show as far as women in these roles are concerned?
Growing slowly by and large (with the odd few trend bucks when resources get extra tight)?
That's evolution.
A stable society will alter over the course of generations.
For some reason, everyone expects this to level out to an even split (which it will never do, unless, of course, you want to dissuade women from doing the types of roles that women actually seem to prefer, such as nursing, medical, biotech, and other more historically female oriented roles.
That's the only way to free up enough of the population to make things 'equal', as statistically, you only have a portion of people to be in one area that haven't already chosen something else.
If they've already chosen something else, then with equal chance, there's going to be a significant statistical bias in set population).Personally, I'm behind anyone of any sex (and there are several listed in the medical status) doing whatever role they'd like to do.
They just need to prove they're good at it, and over time, you'll see the demographics shift of their own accord to new equilibriums (check the population in medical, for example; it's becoming quite female weighted these days as far as doctors go).
Don't expect to wave a magic wand, and set quotas for female loans and so on, as that'll only set up for a backlash (and in the interim make for a wasteful use of resources, as  being held to a lower standard due to quotas, you won't necessarily make best use of money).Really, from being in the world of business for some time, and seeing how things are changing at the small business end, sure, keep taps for real abuses of the system, but let them evolve.
Society shapes its own boundaries, but it's never a fast process.
Watch the changes, and follow to see where the trends are pointing.Oh, and a last point, the "old boys networks" aren't that hard to get into.
Usually, you need a good few solid wins behind you, and they're canny enough to know they'd kinda like you on side, so they talk to you...  If you go chasing after them, it can be notoriously difficult (unless, again, you get those wins on your side).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053362</id>
	<title>Re:Does it ever occur to anybody...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265568480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really? I thought it was just because women have small brains.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
I thought it was just because women have small brains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
I thought it was just because women have small brains.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053028</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1555254_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1555254_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1555254_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31059262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1555254_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1555254_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31055116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1555254_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1555254_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1555254_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1555254_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31057564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1555254_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31057524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1555254_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31056686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1555254_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1555254_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1555254_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31061316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1555254_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31057786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1555254_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31066022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1555254_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1555254_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31061594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1555254_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1555254_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31083358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1555254_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31054476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1555254_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1555254_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31065420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1555254_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1555254_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1555254_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31059630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1555254_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31054092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1555254_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1555254_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1555254_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31054178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1555254_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1555254_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31054934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31054346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1555254_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31059214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1555254_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31054308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1555254_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1555254_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31057844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1555254_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1555254_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1555254_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31056316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1555254_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31059690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_1555254_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31065800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_1555254.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053134
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_1555254.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053162
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_1555254.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31059690
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_1555254.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053074
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_1555254.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31054346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31054934
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_1555254.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053520
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053686
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31059630
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31061316
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31059262
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31057524
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31057564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053714
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31056686
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31061594
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31066022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053388
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31057786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053362
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_1555254.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053988
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_1555254.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31056306
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_1555254.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31056316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31057844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31055116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053870
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_1555254.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31054308
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_1555254.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053212
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_1555254.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053452
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_1555254.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31054092
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_1555254.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053618
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_1555254.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053444
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_1555254.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_1555254.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053728
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_1555254.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31054476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053522
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_1555254.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053702
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_1555254.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31065420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31065800
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_1555254.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053064
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_1555254.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31053206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31059214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31054178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_1555254.31083358
</commentlist>
</conversation>
