×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Women Founders Outpace Male Counterparts In Certain Types of Kickstarter Funding

samzenpus posted about 3 months ago | from the gathering-the-cash dept.

The Almighty Buck 98

Nerval's Lobster writes Women outpace men when it comes to raising money for technology projects through crowdfunding sites such as Kickstarter, according to a new study by researchers at New York University and the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. Jason Greenberg (NYC) and Ethan Mollick (Wharton/UPenn) chose 1,250 Kickstarter projects in five categories: games and technology, where founders were predominantly male; film, with an even gender distribution; and fashion and children's books, both populated with more female founders and backers. They analyzed additional factors such as "industry typing" (a theory in which people 'often hold conscious or unconscious biases about what gender is the archetype employee in a particular occupation or industry') and restricted the data set by geography and how much money each Kickstarter project wanted (a project aiming for less than $5,000 may attract an inordinate percentage of family and friends as funders, skewing results). After crunching the data, they found that female founders of technology projects were more likely than males to achieve their Kickstarter goals, a finding that didn't extend to the other four categories. "It appears female backers are responsible for helping female founders succeed in specific industry categories that women backers generally disfavor," they theorized, adding a little later: "The value of crowdfunding is that it enables access to a pool of potential female backers particularly inclined to support women in industry categories in which they believe women to be underrepresented."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Women should earn more than men. (0, Troll)

frup (998325) | about 3 months ago | (#47698841)

Who cares.

Re:Women should earn more than men. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47698897)

you forgot to check the anonymous box, you sexist fuck.

Re:Women should earn more than men. (1)

frup (998325) | about 3 months ago | (#47698953)

I forgot nothing. An elephant never forgets.

Re: Women should earn more than men. (5, Insightful)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about 3 months ago | (#47699061)

Am I the only one who looks at this and thinks, "Here's clear evidence that, contrary to popular rhetoric, there is a powerful pro-female bias in this society, and any underrepresentation and underfunding that exists can therefore be entirely attributed to, I won't say failings... attributed to the character, capabilities and choices of women"?

SEXISM!!!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47699449)

SEXISM!!!!!!!

OMG!!! Call the Feds!!!!

Red alert!!!!

Re: Women should earn more than men. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47701251)

Incorrect, it's anti-male bias.

If there's any kind of death-may-occur scenario, men are last to safety.

Even as I type this (as a man) this seems that that's how things *should* be.

Most odd. It's almost as if I've been brainwashed my whole life.

Re: Women should earn more than men. (2)

lagomorpha2 (1376475) | about 4 months ago | (#47701313)

Am I the only one who looks at this and thinks, "Here's clear evidence that, contrary to popular rhetoric, there is a powerful pro-female bias in this society, and any underrepresentation and underfunding that exists can therefore be entirely attributed to, I won't say failings... attributed to the character, capabilities and choices of women"?

Women receive more sympathy from society than men, it's called the gender empathy gap. It also contributes to why the vast majority of homeless are men, lack of battered men's shelters despite spousal abuse being split 50/50 between the sexes, significantly higher suicide rate in men, etc. Anyone who hasn't noticed this is brainwashed by feminism.

One of the side effects happens to be that often all a woman has to do in order to generate a substantial amount of money is cry a little on the internet and people will send her money even if they don't expect her kickstarter project to succeed.

Re: Women should earn more than men. (2)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 4 months ago | (#47701953)

Women receive more sympathy from society than men, it's called the gender empathy gap. It also contributes to why the vast majority of homeless are men, lack of battered men's shelters despite spousal abuse being split 50/50 between the sexes, significantly higher suicide rate in men, etc.

Yes this is all true.

Anyone who hasn't noticed this is brainwashed by feminism,

Actually feminism is about equality for men and women. If we become truly equal then that will no longer be a problem (along with a whole bunch of other shit). There are plenty of equally damaging beliefs about men and women.

Mostly there's a dichotomy of men are ATTRIBUTE_X and women are -ATTRIBUTE_X.

So men are seen as "tough" and women as "delicate" which is fundementally sexist. It also happens to hurt men as well as women because not all men are in fact "tough" and as you pointed out men need help too.

But that's actually not the root cause.

The assumption behind sexist things is that women are somehow lesser. This means that a man with attributes (e.g. what you said) which are seen as "traditionally female" is assumed to be a "lesser man" because he's more like a woman. And people don't like helping a lesser man because why bother, right?

That's the flip side of the same sexism that feminists don't like. If women are no longer seen as lesser, then men in those situations are no longer seen as lesser men. At that point they'll just become "people in need of help", not lady-men in need of scorn.

In other words, fighting sexism is win-win.

Re: Women should earn more than men. (1)

sFurbo (1361249) | about 4 months ago | (#47702339)

The assumption behind sexist things is that women are somehow lesser. This means that a man with attributes (e.g. what you said) which are seen as "traditionally female" is assumed to be a "lesser man" because he's more like a woman. And people don't like helping a lesser man because why bother, right?

You don't need a hierarchy to explain the difference, stereotypes will do. Men are not expected to need help, so we don't help them.

If it was a hierarchy, we would expect either "manly" women (better women) or "womanly" men (lesser men) to be preferred, which is not what we observe: Both genders are expected to conform to the stereotype, and are punished for not doing so.

Re: Women should earn more than men. (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 4 months ago | (#47703027)

Both genders are expected to conform to the stereotype, and are punished for not doing so.

Yes I 100% agree. This is essentially what I was driving at.

Re: Women should earn more than men. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47702443)

Actually feminism is about equality for men and women.

No, it isn't. Feminism is about female issues and rights first and foremost. I'm not saying they can't advocate those things, but that is not equality. That's advocating for a special interest group.

Feminism would advocate for shelters for women, but they will stay quiet about shelters for vulnerable men. Some might even tell men to take their complaints elsewhere (read: tell them to shut up, chase them out, or worse) because it distracts people from the issues feminists want to talk about.

The assumption behind sexist things is that women are somehow lesser.

No it isn't. The assumption behind sexist things is that certain traits, which can be positive or negative, are tied to gender. Sexism can tell us that women are more "motherly" and "kind". Sexism can also tell us men are insensitive, violent potential rapists.

You said so yourself, feminists wouldn't like it if they can no longer scorn lady-like men. Now why would a movement that is supposedly about equality dislike the idea that vulnerable men are treated equally as vulnerable women?

In other words, fighting sexism is win-win.

Which is why I'm pointing out to you that feminism is not a movement for equality.

Re: Women should earn more than men. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47703263)

"Actually feminism is about equality for men and women."

This is a ridiculous statement, the clue is right in the name! Feminism - that is about women NOT men. What feminism really is, is the giving to women all the rights of men AND the rights of women. Sounds like equality doesn't it...no not really.

Re: Women should earn more than men. (1)

GT66 (2574287) | about 4 months ago | (#47703455)

"Actually feminism is about equality for men and women"

baaaaaaaloney. If that was the case then while women were championing the concept of DV shelters, they would have gone ahead and created shelters for men. They did not. While they were chamioning alternatives to prison sentencing for women with extenutating circumstances, they would have done the same for men. They did not. While they were holding their walks and fundraisers for breast cancer, they would have done the same for prostate cancer. They did not.

As another poster has said, the equality that feminists seek is the retention of all rights AND privileges accrued to females to date PLUS the rights tor privileges any male might have without, of course, the prerequisite responsibilities and sacrifices that men have traditionally had to make to get those rights.

Re: Women should earn more than men. (1)

ultranova (717540) | about 4 months ago | (#47703805)

Actually feminism is about equality for men and women.

Okay. So naturally feminists are working hard to set up those shelters for men who suffer from domestic abuse which you confirmed are currently missing?

The thing is, you can claim you are about equality, and even believe so from the bottom of your heart, but if you only ever adress inequalities that go one way, you aren't. You're a lobbyist promoting special interests, perhaps fair-mindledly, but a lobbyist still.

Re: Women should earn more than men. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47701357)

... there is a powerful pro-female bias in this society ...

Wealthy women fund other women just like wealthy 'school tie' men fund other 'school tie' men. The behaviour of women and their supposed disadvantages are far less than they claim. The women are not involved in the STEM projects which the pro-female bias demands they should be.

Re: Women should earn more than men. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47701745)

I dont know which part you missed of a EU law where societies that make more than 2 millions of euros a year, have to have 40% of women as their board members. Note that, it is not written as 40% of OTHER sex, but as women. More sexism than that, it is rather difficult.

Re: Women should earn more than men. (1)

Albinoman (584294) | about 3 months ago | (#47699019)

Isnt it more sexist for women to intentionally fund women's projects instead of men's? If men didn't help fund women you KNOW they'd cry foul.

Re: Women should earn more than men. (4, Insightful)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 3 months ago | (#47699077)

Whatever it is, it's not sexist if a woman does it.

Re: Women should earn more than men. (1)

frup (998325) | about 3 months ago | (#47699107)

Sexist is discrimination based on gender that causes harm. Sexist is caring about something like this that does not affect you directly.

We should all be neutral about this. It is a fact, it is an observation and there is not necessarily a motive behind it (although for some there might be). Sex sells and the whole world is buying. If women earned more than men there would be no need for child support.

For the large part most feminists are as sexist as those they oppose, and in every walk of life (whether it be to do with race, gender, religion, politics or sport etc.) those that hold convictions are seeking dominance over others. If we look at the positive of every action, the outcome is more likely to be good for everyone.

We should marvel and cherish those who have been able to achieve greatness and hopefully with the winnings of their efforts they will realise that others have supported them, that others have helped them achieve and they will give back to others, whether in life or at death.

And while debate, free expression and constructive criticism are necessary and virtuous, rousing feelings of anger is not. Whether in yourself or others.

Re: Women should earn more than men. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47699389)

There *IS* no need for child support idiot.

Re: Women should earn more than men. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47699499)

Child support is a tool to take more money from men to give to women. Men who get married, even with pre-nups, take a lot of legal risk in today's world.

Re: Women should earn more than men. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47700413)

Tell this to the leftist politicians building such bias into the legal, financial, and education systems. That is something to be angry about.

Re: Women should earn more than men. (0)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 4 months ago | (#47700173)

Isnt it more sexist for women to intentionally fund women's projects instead of men's? If men didn't help fund women you KNOW they'd cry foul.

Not at all. Women are superior to men in all ways, and women funding kickstarters selectivdely just shows what fucking pigs men are. As you were

Re: Women should earn more than men. (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 4 months ago | (#47700251)

So it's ok for men to fund only projects founded by men, the traditional method that's been applied for centuries and is still ongoing?
Or are you the type of person that believes all of society can in one day say "we're no longer racist or sexist" and the problem is solved, with no need for any additional action necessary to redress past inequalities? Ie, status quo is fine as long as we apologize.

Re: Women should earn more than men. (1)

Albinoman (584294) | about 4 months ago | (#47700431)

Does sexism one way correct for sexism the other. What your saying is "men were very sexist in the past and that's bad. But sexism is only bad when men do it so its okay for women to do it now."

"your ancestors treated them like shit" is not a good excuse.

Re: Women should earn more than men. (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 4 months ago | (#47700675)

So we free the slaves, then say "good luck"?

"Your ancestors treated them like shit" is a good excuse if those ancestors are still alive. If the ancestors paid no compensation then who does? If you just wait it out long enough then the slate is wiped clean even though inequality still exists? Ya, so Native Americans got a raw deal and have to live on infertile dirt patches, but it'd be a violation of someone else's rights if they got some extra scholarships and preferences for college admissions.

The status quo has nothing about it worth defending and yet people keep trying to defend it.

Re: Women should earn more than men. (1)

easyTree (1042254) | about 4 months ago | (#47701275)

"Your ancestors treated them like shit" is a good excuse if those ancestors are still alive. If the ancestors paid no compensation then who does?

At the same time, the idea that persons A are made to suffer as recompense for their ancestors' actions, over which they had (literally) zero control so that persons B may benefit seems harsh.

Although, I guess suffering is relative when persons A have benefited greatly from the compound interest on the value of stolen land over the last few hundred years.

Re: Women should earn more than men. (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 4 months ago | (#47701331)

Who said anything about suffering? I don't think feminists are making anyone suffer.

Re: Women should earn more than men. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47701901)

I don't think feminists are making anyone suffer.

I could give you the rundown, but either you're too stupid or too uninterested to care.

There's a reason that it's called the "Violence Against Women Act" and not the "Violence Against People Act".

So, the feministic bias aside... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47698857)

...doesn't this mean that the other gender, males, are more likely than their female counterparts to reach their goals in the other 4 categories? How is this supposed to be good news for anyone?

Re:So, the feministic bias aside... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47699165)

Not necessarily. The fractions could be so close that there isn't enough statistical significance to claim a result.

Breaking news! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47698873)

The United Cumfarters procreated with a hunk of feces!

Rejoice, my fellow Slashdotters! Rejoice!

Attractive females even more likely to get funded! (5, Insightful)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 3 months ago | (#47698889)

It's not female solidarity. It's hot chicks taking men for chumps...kickstarter, no equity... requirements for supplying funding for nothing is chumpdum.

Re:Attractive females even more likely to get fund (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47698973)

It's Ladder Theory all over again... and you're still her cuddle bitch.

Re:Attractive females even more likely to get fund (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about 3 months ago | (#47699029)

yeah that was my first thought, totally perverted. things involving webcams and internet are counted as startups

Re:Attractive females even more likely to get fund (1)

Matheus (586080) | about 3 months ago | (#47699253)

BOOBIES!!!

Might as well donate...

Re:Attractive females even more likely to get fund (1)

turning in circles (2882659) | about 4 months ago | (#47700693)

No no no! It's a communal/national bias? belief? also held by Google [google.com] , the NSF, and other organizations, that there is a value in increasing women's participation in STEM and therefore gives money to projects that preferentially train/enable women in the sciences.

I don't believe Google and the NSF are run by women, and yet they share the bias. Also, at least for NSF, you don't have to submit a photo, so it's not just hot chicks . . .

Re:Attractive females even more likely to get fund (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47701131)

Except those males who are interested in STEM have to take the harder route of funding their endeavors. It's not ideal in any situation because an individual person who would be just as qualified may lose out on funding due to something as arbitrary as gender, race, etc.

Will increased minority representation in STEM, businesses, etc., be able to overcome the discriminatory practices of years past? Or will that issue still exist in one way or another?

Re:Attractive females even more likely to get fund (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 4 months ago | (#47704615)

Have you ever noticed how a hot chick will get frustrated and momentarily stand up on her toes then lets her heals drop to the ground. Making her boobs giggle.

I like that and don't want them to stop!

But do you think they are aware of what they are doing? (In general, I don't) Do you think mothers teach their daughters this trick? (No) Yet, many, many big boobed women display this body language.

Why? Because it has gotten them what they want in the past! Human interaction is subtle and hot chickness can be inferred one or two degrees of separation away, just by how horny men/bitchy women act when discussing the woman.

Proving Linux is like a woman (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47698895)

Since Women can't make it in a man's world based on this article, Linux couldn't make it in the world of PCs + Servers combined (a REAL man's world, not toys like smartphones), it had to go to other platforms (toyland) in order to take a 'top spot' and so will developers that couldn't cut it in the man's world too.

Prediction: Immediate downmod of this post, just for telling the truth/how it really is (despite the dimwits who downmod it unwilling to face their own inadequacy).

Re:Proving Linux is like a woman (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47699503)

Your "esp" is on "high" setting today. Your prediction was correct. Of course, it doesn't take much as I am sure you know, to know that idiots are always predictably doing the wrong thing to hide truth like you told.

Re:Proving Linux is like a woman (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47700435)

last I checked, linux is on a majority of servers..

Poster you replied to noted linux on servers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47702691)

Can't you read? On desktops Linux loses badly when the numbers are combined. Care to debate that? Only reason linux had to run to smartphone toys was that. It can't win. Linux/Android only was successful on smartphone toys since it's no cost free and keeps per unit costs of smartphone handsets down. Nothing more and certainly not on overall technically superior grounds. All those years of "Linux = Secure, Windows != Secure" b.s. FUD spouted by Open SORES shills around here is all shot to pieces by the malware infestation rates Android sees, nearly daily, for years now also. You Linux fans have failed and Munich now getting ready to abandon Linux also seals the deal proving my points here all the more, and you know it. You lose.

or you know, (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47698907)

It could be that women are more cautious and risk-averse and will generally not attempt a project that has only a marginal chance of succeeding.
So the greater numbers of participating men make up for their lower success rates per man.

If only you could convice more women to participate, their success rates would drop to be as low as the men's...

if a quality project can't raise money elsewhere (3, Interesting)

slew (2918) | about 3 months ago | (#47698921)

If a quality project can't raise money elsewhere from more traditional fund-raising sources, might this indicate a subtle case of pre-selection quality bias instead of an indication of any anything to do with kickstarter campaign odds?

It could simply confirm that woman entrepreneurs often have less access to traditional funding sources because their industry contact lists are shorter in certain industries (which may or may not have anything to do with positive specific gender bias on kickstarter).

This is also consistent with the fact that in industries that tend to have more even female representation, they apparently lost the bias they were measuring...

I guess you can spin the results anyway you want...

See: Anita Sarkeesian (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47698939)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Sarkeesian

She basically takes $150,000 and takes a year to produce videos, until people complain with kickstarter about it being a scam, which were largely appropriated gameplay from other people's youtube channels.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/26/9-year-old-kickstarter-campaign_n_2949294.html

millionaire mom goes onto kickstarter to give money to her daughter to make video games, using emotionally manipulative and (probably fake) family controversy.

Re:See: Anita Sarkeesian (2, Interesting)

frup (998325) | about 3 months ago | (#47699173)

While you outline a scam by a woman which is relevant to this article, for comparison, of female started projects, how many are scams and vice versa? I would be willing to bet there are more male scammers out there (proportionally) than females, just as males are more likely to commit crime.

Re:See: Anita Sarkeesian (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47699235)

[citation needed]

Re:See: Anita Sarkeesian (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47704307)

You're willing to bet? Based on what? Based on your bias.

Re:See: Anita Sarkeesian (4, Informative)

vux984 (928602) | about 4 months ago | (#47699809)

She basically takes $150,000 and takes a year to produce videos

You have the time line wrong:

She creates kickstarter

Some people complain, send her rape-death-threat messages, and turn her online harrassment into a sport.

She reports about THAT on her blog.

Supporters aghast at the abuse she was subjected to respond by donating to her kickstarter to the tune of 150k.

At least that's what the wikipedia article you linked to says; near as I can tell.

Re:See: Anita Sarkeesian (-1, Troll)

epyT-R (613989) | about 4 months ago | (#47700461)

Well that's what professional victimhood trollbaiters like her do. They deliberately push buttons with fallacy ridden, hypocritical content and then label the vitriolic response as proof of their victimhood.

Re:See: Anita Sarkeesian (3, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | about 4 months ago | (#47700735)

They deliberately push buttons with fallacy ridden, hypocritical content and then label the vitriolic response as proof of their victimhood.

So a woman provocatively asserts 'men are pigs' and then the men respond by BEING pigs... and then she says... "see". Sounds like a slam dunk for her, and everyone who acted like a pig just got played as chumps.

If that's really her game, then you're playing right into it. Only got yourselves to blame.

Re:See: Anita Sarkeesian (0)

epyT-R (613989) | about 4 months ago | (#47700973)

Well, complaining about behavior while engaging in it is like slapping a 'kick me' sign on your back and then using all the kicks you get as 'proof' of your victim status. Hypocrites that ask for it deserve no sympathy.

Re:See: Anita Sarkeesian (2)

vux984 (928602) | about 4 months ago | (#47701191)

Hypocrites that ask for it deserve no sympathy.

And yet sympathy funded her kickstarter to the tune of $150,000. Again, if your point is that she's deliberately inciting the abuse to collect on sympathy, then you also have to concede the abusers are chumps playing into her hand.

Well, complaining about behavior while engaging in it is like slapping a 'kick me' sign on your back

How was she engaging in the behavior she was complaining about? Was she sending rape-death threats? or writing games wherein you could beat up people she didn't like?

Simply being critical of the gender stereotypes and tropes in video games hardly rises to that level of abusiveness? Give me a break. You can disagree with her all you like, but she was not dishing out what she received.

Re:See: Anita Sarkeesian (2)

epyT-R (613989) | about 4 months ago | (#47701347)

Yup. there are a lot of suckers out there. The people paying into her kickstarter are the chumps. I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the few people in the community who deliberately feed her shit for her reaction (that game being an example). She baits this trollish behavior right to herself like flies to shit. Whether she does this knowingly for exposure or 'proof', or is genuinely offended, I don't know, but I have to believe she has the intellect to know what kind of reaction she'd get. Her attack on the community is in her generalizations concluding that most of the community has created this massive conspiracy against her, and that she's 'merely' an agency-less victim fighting for 'social justice'.

What else does she do? Well you should watch her vids to see. She deliberately misrepresents the purpose and intent of game designers in various games to 'prove' her conspiracy theories. The implied scapegoat behind it all, of course, is the average male gamer, who is apparently both responsible for supporting as well as being misogynistically brainwashed by, these games. Implied conclusion: male gamers are stupid pigs. A feminist concluding such sexist generalizations under the guise of fighting sexist generalizations should not surprise anyone.

She's also been found to be a fraud who claimed she was a gamer but was not. She's also been found to be using other people's playthrough videos as source material instead of her own. The video footage proving both of these is probably one of the big reasons she gets so much vitriol from gamers. No one likes a hypocrite, and people positively detest a preachy one who suckers people out of money with victim routines.

Re:See: Anita Sarkeesian (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 4 months ago | (#47703081)

Yup. there are a lot of suckers out there. The people paying into her kickstarter are the chumps.

No they're not. Or, in other words you're making up your own definition of "sucker" and "chump" which more or less equate to "people I don't like".

It's not like it's some scam kickstarter where they hope to get some widget and the person responds with the money. No, she's a person known for producing videos on sexism and is now continuing to produce videos on sexism.

They'd be suckers if they were scammed into paying for something they wanted and never got it. Instead, they get to chuck a little bit of money at someone they like to a reasonable approximation to continue doing what they like her doing.

In other words, they knew what they were paying for and have got what they were paying for. That's more or less the opposite of a sucker.

She's also been found to be a fraud

[citation needed]

Re:See: Anita Sarkeesian (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47715659)

Re:See: Anita Sarkeesian (2)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 4 months ago | (#47701969)

Well, complaining about behavior while engaging in it is like slapping a 'kick me' sign on your back and then using all the kicks you get as 'proof' of your victim status.

No, to use your odd analogy, it's more like going online to complain that jerks keep kicking her, then a bunch more jerks join the party to kick her just because she called them jerks for wanting to kick her.

I know you though. You're a regular on feminism threads (as am I!) and you seem to be convinced that women are doing far better than men and everything is about hating men and making them worse or something.

Re:See: Anita Sarkeesian (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47702609)

They deliberately push buttons with fallacy ridden, hypocritical content and then label the vitriolic response as proof of their victimhood.

Hey, that's been the MO of the various "persecution"-based religions for millennia. Why knock an effective strategy?

Re:See: Anita Sarkeesian (1)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | about 4 months ago | (#47701711)

Except what actually happened was she deleted everything BUT troll posts and very likely engaged in sockpuppeting in order to fake her victimhood.

Re:See: Anita Sarkeesian (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47700075)

I read the wikipedia article on Anita Sarkeesian [wikipedia.org] -- there was a brief mentioned regarding some controversy regarding her taking an extra year to make the videos, but nothing about it 'being a scam'. What was much more striking is the level of vitriol leveled at her for her work; in addition to the usual death/rape threats, some guy even made "an internet game called Beat Up Anita Sarkeesian", whose gameplay was apparently true to its namesake. I haven't seen the videos, so I can't say for certain, but based on the wikipedia article she wasn't singling anyone and attacking them in her videos (named "Tropes vs Women in Video Games"). Does anyone else see a problem here?

Re:See: Anita Sarkeesian (0)

epyT-R (613989) | about 4 months ago | (#47700671)

No, I see tit for tat. She deliberately baits the gaming community with fallacy ridden nonsense, and they respond in kind, giving her exactly what she said existed with a big tongue-in-cheek LOL. The community knew she'd either pretend to take it seriously for the sake of exposure and $$$, granting tons of entertainment value, or really take it seriously, granting even more entertainment value. While those people represent a tiny fraction of the community, she lumped those who gave logical retorts in with them to avoid having to answer the criticism and to flesh out the stats to justify her conspiracy theories. This is par for the course with so-called 'social justice' these days.

Professional whiners like her deserve what they get. No one likes being told they're pieces of shit by these whiners for not readily surrendering to their demands for privilege. Like thermonuclear war, the only winning move is not to play. Deny them access to your organization and they won't have the opportunity to inject it with their culture viruses and siphon its resources into another mouthpiece for their next target.

Women like sarkeesian sully the reps of women everywhere.

A lot of assumptions... (2)

tomhath (637240) | about 3 months ago | (#47698993)

As I read the article, the researchers couldn't determine the sex of the contributors to the Kickstarter projects. But they did notice that tech projects started by women had more success getting funding. Their laboratory experiment indicated some women are more likely to support other women. So they conclude that the Kickstarter projects have the same causation.

I kind of wonder about that conclusion though. The type of person who would fund a Kickstarter project comes from a much different population than the (I assume) students they used in their lab. That said, it is a reasonable hypothesis. Obama certainly gets virtually all of the black vote, Hillary gets a lot of her support from women.

Re:A lot of assumptions... (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 3 months ago | (#47699057)

As I read the article, the researchers couldn't determine the sex of the contributors to the Kickstarter projects. But they did notice that tech projects started by women had more success getting funding. Their laboratory experiment indicated some women are more likely to support other women. So they conclude that the Kickstarter projects have the same causation.

I kind of wonder about that conclusion though. The type of person who would fund a Kickstarter project comes from a much different population than the (I assume) students they used in their lab. That said, it is a reasonable hypothesis. Obama certainly gets virtually all of the black vote, Hillary gets a lot of her support from women.

Yup.
They're making wild assumptions about the genders of the backers and trying to drawn conclusions about that. They simply do not have that information and cannot approximate it, especially when they're claiming that gender plays a role in funding.

Re:A lot of assumptions... (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 3 months ago | (#47699395)

They're making wild assumptions about the genders of the backers and trying to drawn conclusions about that

No, they have a hypothesis that may one day be tested on the entire population in question, they formed their hypothesis on the basis of laboratory tests, Extrapolation is a perfectly valid method of making a prediction (and quite possibly the only useful method), corporations and political organisations all over the planet spend gazillions on the results of such "focus group" tests.

Of course nature is what it is and "the future" always reserves the right to to ignore our most confident predictions. In other words science is in the business of disproving its best answers by replacing them with better ones, it can never prove anything no matter how high you stack the data. If nobody has bothered with the question before then obviously the answer these people have is currently the best answer anyone has.

I was a teenager in the 70's, the social and behavioural sciences have come along way since Feynman pointed out their fundamental problem [youtube.com] , the findings from the "Stanford prison experiments" during the same decade is an important, uncomfortable, and sadly underrated example of an early "law of human behaviour".

Re:A lot of assumptions... (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 4 months ago | (#47699651)

They're making wild assumptions about the genders of the backers and trying to drawn conclusions about that

No, they have a hypothesis that may one day be tested on the entire population in question, they formed their hypothesis on the basis of laboratory tests, Extrapolation is a perfectly valid method of making a prediction (and quite possibly the only useful method), corporations and political organisations all over the planet spend gazillions on the results of such "focus group" tests.

Of course nature is what it is and "the future" always reserves the right to to ignore our most confident predictions. In other words science is in the business of disproving its best answers by replacing them with better ones, it can never prove anything no matter how high you stack the data. If nobody has bothered with the question before then obviously the answer these people have is currently the best answer anyone has.

I was a teenager in the 70's, the social and behavioural sciences have come along way since Feynman pointed out their fundamental problem [youtube.com] , the findings from the "Stanford prison experiments" during the same decade is an important, uncomfortable, and sadly underrated example of an early "law of human behaviour".

Uh, no. You can't extrapolate your lab setting to the real model when you don't have any info on the real model to base your lab setting on.
Even if they knew the gender distribution of backers, AND of all visitors who ended up not backing, they still wouldn't be representing the Kickstarter model of people coming upon a Kickstarter of their own volition and deciding to support it or not.

The ONLY way to get this data is for Kickstarter to provide it. The ONLY way to accurately approximate it is to replicate the conditions under which people visit and decide to support (or not support) a Kickstarter. Their scenario doesn't do that in the slightest. You can't even get accurate data on how often people fart in a lab scenario.

Re:A lot of assumptions... (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 3 months ago | (#47699097)

Ya, it is not a ridiculous theory, but it is only a theory. Other experiments have found that women are often biased against other women, so who is to say which way that swings with KS projects.

Re:A lot of assumptions... (2)

frup (998325) | about 3 months ago | (#47699199)

It is natural human behaviour to form a bond with those who are most similar to us. That is the structure of all societies. Tribalism.

Re:A lot of assumptions... (4, Insightful)

epyT-R (613989) | about 4 months ago | (#47700709)

Right. The problem is that when women do it, it's considered 'empowering.' When men do it, it's considered sexist bigotry.

Re:A lot of assumptions... (1)

ultranova (717540) | about 4 months ago | (#47703525)

The problem is that when women do it, it's considered 'empowering.' When men do it, it's considered sexist bigotry.

Having a double standard for members of your own group vs. members of other groups is also natural human behaviour. Neither women nor feminists are any less hypocritical or power-hungry than humans in general. Every movement, no matter it's initial purpose, eventually degenerates into benefiting the people within at the expense of the people without, and at that point should be considered as having exhausted any moral high ground it might ever had had, and abandoned in favour of something new and still shiny.

Re:A lot of assumptions... (1)

david_thornley (598059) | about 4 months ago | (#47707069)

Then again, whenever somebody complains about the lack of women in STEM fields, a whole lot of /. commenters say it's only natural, that there's sex differences.

By that reasoning, women are just better at Kickstarter than men. Must be genetic.

Kickstarter Goals? (3, Interesting)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 3 months ago | (#47699037)

Reading TFA is seems by 'Kickstarter Goal' they mean getting funded.
Once you've got funded you have to actually do the thing you said you were going to do with the money.

If people are using gender to determine who they are funding, they are presumably displacing more rational metrics, like "does the project make any sense?", or "Does this person seem competent to do what they claim they can do?'.

Thus in those areas where gender bias is measurable in funding, I would assume the odds of eventual successful delivery to be reduced.

Re:Kickstarter Goals? (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 3 months ago | (#47699575)

Newsflash, the vast majority of investments and purchases made by individuals are driven by emotion and circumstance, logic is way down the list when it comes to real life decisions, what most claim to be logic is actually rationalisation of emotions. If what TFA claims is true then these people are merely rationalising a high risk investment with a secondary social motive, so even if they lose their money they can be satisfied that some nebulous "social good" came out of it. They are trying to set things up so they cannot fail to get some sort of "reward". Thing is we don't consciously think those things, we "feel" them when making a decision to hand over the money, or not.

Re: Kickstarter Goals? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47699669)

My guess is that if women are underrepresented they are funded more often out of novelty. Hypothetically the finished product would end up being different from the usual justifying the risk of kickstarter.

Re:Kickstarter Goals? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47700589)

There is the possibility that gender bias of the funders isn't playing a role, or even a reverse role and rather that the bias is coming out of people using rational metrics and the end result being a gender bias in funding.

Dunno, just throwing it out there

Re:Kickstarter Goals? (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 4 months ago | (#47700789)

We need to do a controlled experiment to establish causality. First get a second KickStarter web site..

Re: Kickstarter Goals? (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about 4 months ago | (#47700757)

Just because you get funded doesn't mean you have to do shit. Kickstarter creates as much obligation as a hobo standing outside a liquor store asking for change "for the bus".

Re:Kickstarter Goals? (0)

cryptizard (2629853) | about 4 months ago | (#47701327)

It could be that women have interesting ideas for products that are useful to other women, but that wouldn't get funding through traditional means. So it might not be that women are funding projects because they are started by women, but that because they are started by women they are projects that are interesting to other women.

Re:Kickstarter Goals? (1)

gay358 (770596) | about 4 months ago | (#47702003)

Reaching Kickstarter goal is not a good measure by itself. Reaching Kickstarter goal more often could mean that women just put their Kickstarter goals to more modest level than men do. Women tend to ask lower wages than men and it could be that women put their goals on Kickstarter to lower level than men do.

Re:Kickstarter Goals? (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 4 months ago | (#47702167)

I think it's just that women tend to have more realistic goals and thus a better chance of achieving them. Well, it might not be gender related per-se, just that women tend to do more artistic and creative Kickstarters while technology related projects are more often proposed by males, and technology projects are often much harder to pull off.

Look at the average artistic project. Lots of concept art or examples of what the person plans to make, hopefully with a reasonable plan to deliver. Now look at the average technology project. Lots of logos from glorified blogs that mentioned the project, a big list of features, some hipster douchbag stock images and a half baked Arduino prototype. The plan is to spend all the money actually developing the product, meaning there is a high chance of it failing. Since production of high tech items is complex and challenging the founders almost always vastly underestimate what is required.

It probably also helps that artistic projects ask for more realistic amounts of money, instead of $500,000 so the founder can quit their job and do the R&D.

Re:Kickstarter Goals? (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 4 months ago | (#47703689)

I won't fund any electronics hardware project that appears to be asking for too little money. It's a sure sign they don't understand the scale of electronics manufacturing.

Re:Kickstarter Goals? (1)

phorm (591458) | about 4 months ago | (#47703227)

Maybe females were less likely to attempt kickstarting stupid things like booby apps etc, or their projects are more meaningful to a given audience. Remember, not every kickstarter is a geek toy etc, there are a lot of projects with a more personal/direct aim that may be able to easily solicit funds from a targeted audience.

Then again, some dude managed to kickstart making potato salad for a ton of cash, so it seems there are still plenty of people out there to fund stupid projects too.

Nerval's Lobster = dice.com (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47699099)

I've become accustomed to looking at the name of the submitter on slashdot articles. And today, I thought, "Nerval's Lobster... why does that name seem familiar?"

Oh, that's right, that's the account that links to an article on news.dice.com for every submission.

"certain types" (1)

turkeydance (1266624) | about 3 months ago | (#47699101)

thank you. a new "code" phrase i plan to use.

Re:"certain types" (1)

Megane (129182) | about 3 months ago | (#47699453)

When I read the summary, the first thing I thought of was that TBBT episode where Penny has to make a couple thousand thingamabobs. "Jewelry!", thought I. Then I saw the word "fashion". Yep.

Female Founders Outpace Men Counterparts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47699227)

Learn grammar you fucking morons!

this inequality should not be tolerated! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47699351)

By the logic of all the other stories about the gender/race inequalities in the tech world, we need to fix this inequality immediately. More male-led ventures need to be promoted to change this male-inhospitable funding environment!

Re:this inequality should not be tolerated! (1)

david_thornley (598059) | about 4 months ago | (#47707079)

Or, given lots of the responses when that comes up, we need to conclude that women are just genetically superior at Kickstarter projects.

Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47699965)

Really, who gives a shit?

Rational decisions? (2, Interesting)

manu0601 (2221348) | about 4 months ago | (#47700585)

If I understand the summary correctly, women would be investing into projects just because the leader is female?

Re:Rational decisions? (0)

cryptizard (2629853) | about 4 months ago | (#47701337)

Or because women who start Kickstarter projects have ideas that are more interesting to women. The causality could be flipped.

Re:Rational decisions? (1)

manu0601 (2221348) | about 4 months ago | (#47708575)

You need a set of male entrepreneurs posing as a women to check that. But after that study that should come quickly.

Project creation bias? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47701057)

Maybe the effect comes from women having on average more practical/useful projects? To get a bias like this, you only need a few guys posting crazy ideas for kicks.

Theres nothing wrong with dreaming big crazy shit projects but they might have a gender bias. Suppose I want to resurrect T-Rex, cross it with a rocket, and use it to blow up the moon, and I only need a billion dollars. This is a nice manly project, but would you give me 100$ to get a chunk of the moon? 1000$ for a chunk of the dinosaur?

There is nothing inherently bad about one group having a higher failure rate at a subset of their projects. I fail at a ton of crazy shit: it doesn't make me suck. What we have is an outcome: data. There isn't good evidence for any cause, or any reason to consider it an issue. Men and women differ by a statistically significant margin! I'd be amazed if that wasn't true (The more data you have, the smaller and less significant effects become statistically significant). I bet there is a difference racially, nationally and age wise too! Oh no, people are diverse, how can we fix it?

Need regulation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47701555)

Can we please get some government regulation to protect males against this kind of discrimination.

Yes and? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47701651)

The more people bring things like this into the light, instead of just filing it away as a fact for a rainy day, the more it looks like we need more of this kind of thing.

Equality is not needing to mention things like this at every oppurtunity and just accept the ups and downs as a fluctuation in life, not some evil conspiracy to control a gender population...

Dumbasses

Logical conclusion for founders (1)

GuB-42 (2483988) | about 4 months ago | (#47701663)

If you are a man and your have a women in your team, put her in front, whoever is the actual leader. Or maybe at least let your wife/GF/sister/whatever do the advertizing.
I believe it should better if she is hot (but not slutty) as it should work on both men and women.

This is assuming of course that the study is unbiased and that gender really matters (i.e. : causation, not simple correlation).

How many were just eye-candy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47703295)

How many of the women were just the girlfriends/wives/sisters of the actual men behind the project and simply put out front to sucker the average single male nerd on the Internet to give up their money? i.e. prostitutes for technology?

More propaganda research (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47703891)

..to get men out of the workforce and replaced by masculine women.

"Women, on a particular sunday, in cosmetic based kickstarted products are better than men."
Replace the men!

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?