Take a look at my new essay, The End of Innocence and Making It Big: The NYTimes spins yet another lost girl tale of innocence, regret and discreetly hot sex, at BlogHer.
A snippet:
"Is there truly any less foolproof way to sell the Sunday issue that to get huge viral buzz from a damsel in distress story played out in that most modern of locales, the blogsphere?

Call it cynical on my part, but I can just see current NYTMag editor Adam Moss looking back over the upper-middle class waif stories (and media sensations) of Joyce Maynard and later Elizabeth Wurtzel and wondering if Emily Gould's sob story of error and reform would generate the same page views and buzz those two highly manufactured heroines achieved.

While much of the media criticism and the consumer comments have focused on Gould's narcissism and opportunistic use of her beauty, sexuality and position, and the aggressive marketing of her subsequent prettily teared up regret, no one has talked much about the cold-blooded cynicism of the Times in assigning and publishing what is just the latest incarnation in an ongoing series of sensational stories by attractive young women who struggle."

"The problem we would soon find out was that having hundreds of active users in Chicago didn't mean that you would have even two active users in Milwaukee, less than a hundred miles away, not to mention any in New York or San Francisco. The software and concept simply didn't scale beyond its physical borders."

--Meetro founder Paul Bragiel, writing about his crashed and burned start up and the lessons learned in a wise and useful post on TechCrunch

Authoritative newspaper article in the Boston Globe that says "...two new studies by economists and social scientists have reached a perhaps startling conclusion: An important part of the explanation for the gender gap, they are finding, are the preferences of women themselves. When it comes to certain math- and science-related jobs, substantial numbers of women - highly qualified for the work - stay out of those careers because they would simply rather do something else."

Additional data points on this one are that "A certain amount of gender gap might be a natural artifact of a free society, where men and women finally can forge their own vocational paths."
Furthermore, this article says "It may seem like a cliche - or rank sexism - to say women like to work with people, and men prefer to work with things."

Seems reasonable to me. After all,  if we stay with this argu=ment, then we also know that African Americans would prefer not to become CEOS or C-level executives; they stay out of those careers because they would simply prefer to do something else--NOT!!!!.

In other words, this is the most stupid, specious and circular arguement I have heard in a while, and I am embarassed a priestess of the journalism tribe would digest this booha whole and spit it back up for us,

Come on, woman, empirical reasoning does not rule!

Seems to me that when we make workplaces equal access and age/race/ and gender neutral, then we can ask these questions for real...otherwise, it's a question of  whether you're willing to be the exception--or not.

This is a picture of the most recent ycombinator Start Up School at Stanford. Take a good look. Seems like it was a great program.  Anyone able to tell me what is wrong with this picture? Post in comments, please.