Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

>This is the 21st century. Are we really still talking about "natural imperatives"?

I do think that "imperative" is a little strong. But males are biologically different from females in all species, and in all species this translates into behavioral differences. There's no such thing as a species where males and females don't show behavioral differences, and in particular in regards to mating behavior and reproduction.

Certainly humans, as a whole, in first world countries are failing to mate effectively. Children are being had later or not at all. But women still show a comparatively greater interest, despite this overall trend. It would be foolish to claim that the 21st century has made natural behavioral differences irrelevant.



The biology argument is an affront to the spirit of entrepreneurialism. There's nothing natural about starting a company. Often it requires ignoring social needs and occasionally one's health. What about the need for sleep? I don't often read comments compelling founders to heed that biological requirement.


>What about the need for sleep? I don't often read comments compelling founders to heed that biological requirement.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39699 http://www.ted.com/talks/arianna_huffington_how_to_succeed_g...

Besides your counterpoint being blatantly wrong, I don't understand why something being an "affront" to what you feel is the entrepreneurial "spirit" is a valid argument at all.

It's like Christians saying evolutionary theory is an "affront" to Christianity. It very may well be, but that doesn't mean that evolutionary theory isn't correct or have merit.


He's not saying that women are doomed to fail. He's just pointing out that they often make different choices than men, and that many of those choices are likely rooted in biology.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: