But one has to ask oneself, "s there a group of women for which these rules work?" If so, why?

'Nuff said...

for whom their self esteam is based solely on some outside factor in their life. Who they date, what they wear, the money they have, etc.

These people aren't exclusivly female, though their existance in the female population is factual.

For those that see a relationship with a certain kind of person as their purpose in existance the interaction between themselves and those they seek to tie themselves too can be quite emotionally exhausting.

Mockery of these people, and rules on their avoidance is perhaps a little crass but hardly demeaning to women as a whole, unless you think all women are demeaned by the actions of say Paris Hilton.

The item points out that the women in question are a specific type of person who is looking to create a relationship based solely around the status of the other person.

If the presentation had been a discussion by a successful woman on how to avoid and exploit the various giggilos who would glom onto them, I doubt it would have quite this negative of a response.

odds are good these men and women deserve each other.

I have worked and socialized in the Internet/start up world for eleven years. This is news to me.

This guy's clearly a bit of an oinker, but I'm saving my rage for the groupies. They exist, and they're awful.

You see, there is this thing called "humor" and one style of it involves extreme absurdity and parody and essentially stating things that are the opposite of being true, and in the process making fun of yourself. It's strange, I know, and it doesn't always work, or work all that well. But there it is.

If anybody really believes that there really are money-grubbing web start-up founder groupies, they are living in a dream world; why do you think the audience was laughing so hard?

This guy is a jackass, but it does remind me of something. Years ago I remember watching some video segment where a journalist asked a rapper why rap lyrics were so misogynistic. He was pretty honest; he said that before they become famous these guys are frequently rejected and scorned by the same women who throw themselves at the rappers after they make it. It reflects a deep-seated male resentment that I think in some ways is a legitimate complaint about what women seem to gravitate towards. Lord knows women have grounds to complain about certain aspects of the male psyche, this is just turnaround (just more crude and vicious than it needs to be).

I've been through a fair number of tech business cycles. One of my investment rules is that when hot chicks suddenly appear in droves, it is time to move from equity and into cash. Note: I carefully distinguish between competent interesting women and hot chicks.

The bubble always bursts and most of the tourists leave. Those tourists include various bankers, speculators, and hot chicks.

As for the tech geeks attitude, think of it is as when the nymphs hatch. The trout gorge themselves during the temporary plenitude. Then, they go back to hungrily skulking.

I could be wrong, but I think this was supposed to be some kind of tongue-in-cheek, self-deprecating in-joke, along the lines of "we're such dweebs that beautiful women couldn't possibly be dating us for anything other than our money." The graphics were clearly meant to be amusing and the pictures of various male web geek victims weren't exactly flattering. And the 97% disappointment statistic was in the form of a pie chart, which struck me as funny, although I'm not sure why. Moreover, I don't think he was seriously blaming his hair loss on a failed relationship with his ex-girlfriend.

In any case, the loudest laughter seemed to be female. Of course, it could have been nervous laughter...

I suppose that, if you acted/spoke a bit less hysterical/ly (and let me add that I wrote my dissertation on Victorian emerging-discourse regarding "female phsychology", so please don't bother your selves to lecture me on that word)......well?...I suppose we'd just come back to the fact that you really don't have much to say that would get published anywhere else (including other sections of salon.com?....

So?...let's get "hysterical", shall we, girls?

It's a pity that "feminism" has, in this venue at least, come to this sort of jigged-up follery for mediocre self-agrandizing "writers" who happen to be female..........

.......

David "Let Folks Dig their Own Graves" Terry

I was a member of the founding team (employee #10) at a startup that was launched during the bubble. One of the founders was single, good-looking and brilliant, and also had zero social skills. He was a good friend, and a great leader.

And then he ran into Elizabeth (fake name, obviously). She was a very skilled, once-divorced (married a CEO, didn't work out) money-grubbing whore. She had her eyes on the prize. In this case, the prize was a guy who had one million founders' shares of a startup, who was alone and working his ass off, eating stress for breakfast. She went after him like a shark going after a wounded tuna.

And month by month, as the bubble inflated and his stock became worth more and more, she increased the intensity of her seduction. She was very hard to resist -- knowledgeable about business, red hair, impressive rack. She worked very hard.

And it worked. Ultimately, he sold out for about $100 per share. Do the math. They're now married, with the house in Marin, everything. Rumor is that she managed to get herself pregnant with his child during this process, but although it's quite plausible, I can't prove it.

If you deny that this happens, you have no idea what you're talking about. Or you're fourteen years old, and reading too much Betty Friedan. People who launch startups can make serious, serious money really fast. There are lots of very hot, very financially ambitious women who know exactly how all this works, and who want some of it. They just earn it differently.