4 ms·

In this case, her gender and her looks are actually relevant, since most VCs are male, and it would be naive to assume that VCs are completely immune to the inf

by adwn 11y ago

In this case, her gender and her looks are actually relevant, since most VCs are male, and it would be naive to assume that VCs are completely immune to the influence of a young, attractive woman.

pron 11y ago
So what you're saying is that SV's well-documented sexism is (among many other things, also) may also be a significant contributing factor for reckless investment. But in this case, I don't see the problem. If in 9 cases out of 10 women get the short end of the stick due to sexism, that some of them are occasionally able to turn the tables and use it for their own advantage is nothing but a cause for celebration: "Ingenious Woman Turns Investors' Harmful Sexism Against Them". Social hacking at its best! If women were only truly able to pull-off "a Holmes" (i.e., con male investors out of their money using their sexual charms), maybe that threat would finally get investors to start seeing sexism as a serious problem. The only thing that's bugging me about your solution to sexism, is that according to that logic, women should be at a great advantage when raising money from VCs (unless you also claim that their natural lack of cunning offsets that advantage), yet in practice we see the exact opposite. So it's unclear to me how -- without any other information on investors' reasoning -- femininity could be at all mentioned as an advantage when fundraising, while data shows it to be otherwise.
- adwn 11y ago
  > So what you're saying is that SV's well-documented sexism is (among many other things, also) may also be a significant contributing factor for reckless investment. No, I'm not saying that at all, and my point was completely unrelated to sexism. You can be entirely un-sexist and still be subconsciously influenced by the attractiveness of the opposite sex (in case of heterosexuality; applies correspondingly to homosexual people). It's a natural bias which we should be aware of and recognize in ourselves, so that we can compensate for it. My point was that the majority of SV's VCs are male (and presumably mostly heterosexual, like the rest of the population), so it is plausible that Holmes' gender and looks influenced VC decisions to a certain degree.
- 50CNT 11y ago
  Wouldn't the outcome that they just start investing less in women due to (subconscious) group association be just as likely? After all, if you're getting investment through your belonging in a certain group, and then never deliver, you're muddying the waters for other members of your group, whether that be expats, women, young founders, old founders, etc. Even though I'm all for using your weaknesses as strengths, getting back what's owed to you, etc, I'm seriously doubtful that "pullin'a 'olmes" is a cause for celebration. If anything, it tarnishes the image of female founders in the long term, and at best its short sighted revenge. There's a lot more good to be had if there were female founders publicly pulling a Zuckerberg or a Gates, and I'm sure there will be.
  - pron 11y ago
    I was being sarcastic. Clearly the data show that not only do women not have a better chance at getting investment, they have a worse chance, in spite of their supposed irresistible charm and the fact that they are less likely to be swindlers. Which is why I find it funny that not only do looks get mentioned only when women are concerned, they are mentioned as an obvious advantage while women are empirically at a disadvantage when it comes to convincing investors. If you read testimonials of female entrepreneurs online you will see that while investors' attraction towards them may manifest itself in several ways, increased chance of investment is generally not one of them.
    - 50CNT 11y ago
      I've heard the stories of investors hitting on female founders, and they're just as disturbing to me as they are to you. Unsurprising, but still incredibly unprofessional. Though I'm also unsurprised that looks are mentioned about when males talk about female founders. I don't think it's meant maliciously, it's an error of habit. There's probably a purpose built part of my brain just of evaluating womens looks, and that bubbles up. But calling it out seems appropriate, it has little to do with the discussion. But investors investing less into female founders despite them being less likely to be swindlers/more likely to be better founders is a very interesting topic. That goes against their stated purpose, why would they do that? My personal hunch is that it's that bit of gut feeling that fills in the blanks when metrics run out that is screwing over female founders. When faced with a decision we have insufficient knowledge on, our minds extrapolate from past experience. We look at past events or knowledge that may be applicable, things we've heard, come up with a heuristic answer. Now the thing is, investors don't know of that many successful female founders, matter of fact, neither do I, at least nowhere close to the number of successful male founders I know of. Those mental queries that would otherwise inspire confidence come up blank, the tally gets taken, and for reasons that don't really matter, the female founder gets short charged. By the way, this process also works against other social groups and in other situations. Name 10 successful black founders off the top of your head. Chinese-american CEOs (ayy bamboo ceiling). What's your opinion on stay-at-home dads and male nurses? It's insidious, isn't it? Really, there's only so much we can do against it though. One is being aware of such biases in ourselves and pushing against them, and the other much slower long term solution, adjusting people's mental databases to better reflect modern realities. I guess we need stronger role models for women in technology, ones that do stand against long held beliefs. After all, female pilots don't seem strange (given Erhard), female programmers don't seem that strange (because of Hopper and other very talented women), female CEOs seem a lot less strange nowadays (example that pops in my mind is Marissa Meyer), but female tech founders still do. But we'll fix that in due time.
cbsmith 11y ago
> it would be naive to assume that VCs are completely immune to the influence of a young, attractive woman. ...and it would require completely ignoring the data to think that young, attractive women do well in front of VC's. There's a real world out there where female founders are fighting to get in the door.
- adwn 11y ago
  > ...and it would require completely ignoring the data Can you show me this data, so that I can stop ignoring it? This is a genuine request, I'm not trying to be snarky.
  - cbsmith 11y ago
    There is data on this everywhere. It'd be hard to miss if you looked at even a handful of funding rounds (though the industry is getting better at this). Clarity came up at the top of the Google search: http://blog.clarity.fm/why-women-founders-matter/ http://blog.clarity.fm/why-women-founders-matter/ It shows 4-9% of VC funding goes to companies with female founders, roughly tracking the percentage of women at top VC firms. People need evidence to accept this blatant reality of the tech scene, but making assertions about young, attractive women being blindly handed billions of dollars...

by adwn 11y ago

In this case, her gender and her looks are actually relevant, since most VCs are male, and it would be naive to assume that VCs are completely immune to the influence of a young, attractive woman.

pron 11y ago

So what you're saying is that SV's well-documented sexism is (among many other things, also) may also be a significant contributing factor for reckless investment. But in this case, I don't see the problem. If in 9 cases out of 10 women get the short end of the stick due to sexism, that some of them are occasionally able to turn the tables and use it for their own advantage is nothing but a cause for celebration: "Ingenious Woman Turns Investors' Harmful Sexism Against Them". Social hacking at its best! If women were only truly able to pull-off "a Holmes" (i.e., con male investors out of their money using their sexual charms), maybe that threat would finally get investors to start seeing sexism as a serious problem. The only thing that's bugging me about your solution to sexism, is that according to that logic, women should be at a great advantage when raising money from VCs (unless you also claim that their natural lack of cunning offsets that advantage), yet in practice we see the exact opposite. So it's unclear to me how -- without any other information on investors' reasoning -- femininity could be at all mentioned as an advantage when fundraising, while data shows it to be otherwise.

adwn 11y ago
> So what you're saying is that SV's well-documented sexism is (among many other things, also) may also be a significant contributing factor for reckless investment. No, I'm not saying that at all, and my point was completely unrelated to sexism. You can be entirely un-sexist and still be subconsciously influenced by the attractiveness of the opposite sex (in case of heterosexuality; applies correspondingly to homosexual people). It's a natural bias which we should be aware of and recognize in ourselves, so that we can compensate for it. My point was that the majority of SV's VCs are male (and presumably mostly heterosexual, like the rest of the population), so it is plausible that Holmes' gender and looks influenced VC decisions to a certain degree.
50CNT 11y ago
Wouldn't the outcome that they just start investing less in women due to (subconscious) group association be just as likely? After all, if you're getting investment through your belonging in a certain group, and then never deliver, you're muddying the waters for other members of your group, whether that be expats, women, young founders, old founders, etc. Even though I'm all for using your weaknesses as strengths, getting back what's owed to you, etc, I'm seriously doubtful that "pullin'a 'olmes" is a cause for celebration. If anything, it tarnishes the image of female founders in the long term, and at best its short sighted revenge. There's a lot more good to be had if there were female founders publicly pulling a Zuckerberg or a Gates, and I'm sure there will be.
- pron 11y ago
  I was being sarcastic. Clearly the data show that not only do women not have a better chance at getting investment, they have a worse chance, in spite of their supposed irresistible charm and the fact that they are less likely to be swindlers. Which is why I find it funny that not only do looks get mentioned only when women are concerned, they are mentioned as an obvious advantage while women are empirically at a disadvantage when it comes to convincing investors. If you read testimonials of female entrepreneurs online you will see that while investors' attraction towards them may manifest itself in several ways, increased chance of investment is generally not one of them.
  - 50CNT 11y ago
    I've heard the stories of investors hitting on female founders, and they're just as disturbing to me as they are to you. Unsurprising, but still incredibly unprofessional. Though I'm also unsurprised that looks are mentioned about when males talk about female founders. I don't think it's meant maliciously, it's an error of habit. There's probably a purpose built part of my brain just of evaluating womens looks, and that bubbles up. But calling it out seems appropriate, it has little to do with the discussion. But investors investing less into female founders despite them being less likely to be swindlers/more likely to be better founders is a very interesting topic. That goes against their stated purpose, why would they do that? My personal hunch is that it's that bit of gut feeling that fills in the blanks when metrics run out that is screwing over female founders. When faced with a decision we have insufficient knowledge on, our minds extrapolate from past experience. We look at past events or knowledge that may be applicable, things we've heard, come up with a heuristic answer. Now the thing is, investors don't know of that many successful female founders, matter of fact, neither do I, at least nowhere close to the number of successful male founders I know of. Those mental queries that would otherwise inspire confidence come up blank, the tally gets taken, and for reasons that don't really matter, the female founder gets short charged. By the way, this process also works against other social groups and in other situations. Name 10 successful black founders off the top of your head. Chinese-american CEOs (ayy bamboo ceiling). What's your opinion on stay-at-home dads and male nurses? It's insidious, isn't it? Really, there's only so much we can do against it though. One is being aware of such biases in ourselves and pushing against them, and the other much slower long term solution, adjusting people's mental databases to better reflect modern realities. I guess we need stronger role models for women in technology, ones that do stand against long held beliefs. After all, female pilots don't seem strange (given Erhard), female programmers don't seem that strange (because of Hopper and other very talented women), female CEOs seem a lot less strange nowadays (example that pops in my mind is Marissa Meyer), but female tech founders still do. But we'll fix that in due time.

cbsmith 11y ago

> it would be naive to assume that VCs are completely immune to the influence of a young, attractive woman. ...and it would require completely ignoring the data to think that young, attractive women do well in front of VC's. There's a real world out there where female founders are fighting to get in the door.

adwn 11y ago
> ...and it would require completely ignoring the data Can you show me this data, so that I can stop ignoring it? This is a genuine request, I'm not trying to be snarky.
- cbsmith 11y ago
  There is data on this everywhere. It'd be hard to miss if you looked at even a handful of funding rounds (though the industry is getting better at this). Clarity came up at the top of the Google search: http://blog.clarity.fm/why-women-founders-matter/ http://blog.clarity.fm/why-women-founders-matter/ It shows 4-9% of VC funding goes to companies with female founders, roughly tracking the percentage of women at top VC firms. People need evidence to accept this blatant reality of the tech scene, but making assertions about young, attractive women being blindly handed billions of dollars...