> From what I've seen, a lot of women have a low tolerance for this level of overt critique, regardless of whether the critique is correct or not.

Please stop talking.

Why? Do you find that uncomfortable?

A lot of women do. So do a lot of men. Computer science is filled with people on the poor side of "social skill set", and that rubs a lot of people the wrong way. That's why there are less women in the field - they simply aren't going to tolerate a default reaction that is insulting first and helpful only if you ignore the attitude.

Don't get me wrong, we turn off a lot of people - men and women - because of this, but we lose a lot more women, percentage wise.

And just a note: The irony of you telling me to "please stop talking" is, well, perfectly suited to the topic of our conversation.

I can't speak for hendzen, but your suggestion that women avoid tech because they're not as thick-skinned as men -- as opposed to being constantly exposed to hostility -- can easily be perceived as offensive. It sounds like you're propagating the myth that women are delicate flowers who just aren't as tough as men, which is part of what allows men to continue getting away with bad behavior.

Well, that's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that women are less tolerant of assholes, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Women (overall of course, individuals vary) and men in general have different social cues and expectations. That's why each gender will act differently in the locker room than they will around the boardroom table.

Personally, I think there is nothing wrong with suggesting that women in general are less tolerant of being directly criticized in a public forum than men are. I don't view it as a sign of weakness. Men are much less tolerant of the behind the back insults that happen in women's circles than women are. The genders (overall, again) relate differently.

Neither is a sign of weakness, although they are exactly that when one of the two methods is dominant. And that's where we are today - computer science is closer to a locker room in culture and behaviour in many ways than it is to a boardroom. I see no reason not to accept the fact that many women would not be comfortable given that.

It isn't the women that need to change, though.

(I also see your point. My first comment may not have been properly clear.)

You know, I think that socials skills are lacking those who are easily offended by anything.

Agreed and disagreed.

It's not healthy to be permanently offended, but presenting an idea and being told that it isn't good (by someone presenting no alternative) or that you have ulterior motives (by readers of a website directed to startups of all things) isn't something someone should need to deal with.

> presenting an idea and being told that it isn't good (by someone presenting no alternative) ... isn't something someone should need to deal with.

I might be visualizing a different conversational domain than you are, but I'm not sure about this.

For example, when you build a bridge, there's a clear, objective line of quality somewhere above "the bridge stays standing." If I know enough about physics to see that your bridge won't stand, that doesn't mean that I also know enough about architecture to propose my own bridge -- but it doesn't have to; the knowledge that design X is fatally flawed is useful in its own right.

>For example, when you build a bridge, there's a clear, objective line of quality somewhere above

She isn't building a bridge, she's writing a story for children. The failure point is that nobody likes her story and therefore it doesn't sell. That's the absolute worst thing that can happen. Not a single child will be so critically scarred from her story that they never learn programming. Yet it may resonate for some.

There is no point to critique when the downside is so unbelievably inconsequential and the plus side is beneficial to a person, other than simply being an ass.

But you made a general argument (no one should ever have to deal with negative feedback without a proposed alternative), not one specific to this case. And in the general case, it's wrong. I agree completely that it's right in this specific case -- but you were rhetorically over-reaching.

Social skills are those we develop to be able to function in a world of different weltanschauung. They are skills developed specifically to avoid offending anyone. Social skills can be taught but a thick skin can only be developed through experience.

Thanks for contributing, hendzen. Downvote.