3 ms·

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 invest

by 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.

by 50CNT 11y ago

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.