35 ms·

They ignored the one from the article, which I think is the main point of contention. Now, the other part of this is the companies the female founders were pit

They ignored the one from the article, which I think is the main point of contention. Now, the other part of this is the companies the female founders were pitching. Venture capitalists will only want to go that extra step if they think the idea is worth the investment and can make a quick ROI. Since there aren't as many women there in the first place (we don't have exact numbers, but the article), and the ones that are there have to have an idea worthy of a pitch, my point still stands. Getting a pitch is mostly about having a good business idea and not about race or gender. I keep reading that women are paid 70 cents to the dollar to men. If this were actually true, why wouldn't the venture capitalists be fighting each other to get cheap labor? After reading the article again, I'm also a little shocked that the author is trying to make a point about being excluded while at the same time pointing to an entire list of groups that are exclusive to a specific gender or sexual preference. Shouldn't we be fighting for equality instead of creating more exclusive groups? Why do you expect this behavior of others if you can't behave that way yourself?

matt4077 10y ago
Oh wow, this reads like the index of a book on sexism in the 90ies... > I keep reading that women are paid 70 cents to the dollar to men. If this were actually true, why wouldn't the venture capitalists be fighting each other to get cheap labor? This doesn't even make sense, since founders are not employed by VCs. But regarding the talking point you're repackaging, the idea is that people actually value women less then men so they wouldn't recognize the bargain they're getting. But the topic is much broader including, for example, jobs traditionally reserved for women to have lower wages across the board, even when the requirements are the same. An example I seem to remember is nurses vs. <some technical job I forgot>: both require comparable education, but nurses are paid 30% less per hour. > After reading the article again, I'm also a little shocked that the author is trying to make a point about being excluded while at the same time pointing to an entire list of groups that are exclusive to a specific gender or sexual preference. That's answered elsewhere in the thread, but basically the thinking is it's ok because (a) women may need these events so as to avoid being "grabbed by the pussy" and (b) it's a false equivalence because these groups don't create injustice but try to make up for existing injustice. See also every argument about affirmative action ever. > Since there aren't as many women there in the first place [..] getting a pitch is mostly about having a good business idea and not about race or gender. This seems to be making the point that it's not statistically significant if of four chosen founders, none are women because the number of women in the population of founders is equally low. Let's say only a quarter of founders are women that gives about a 30% of an all-men panel of four (0.75^4). That's not significant based on the standard p-value cutoff, but I'm almost sure this isn't the author's first event and she may have gone into it with a certain `prior`.
- chinese_dan 10y ago
  "Oh wow, this reads like the index of a book on sexism in the 90ies..." I want equality for all and you try to tell me it's Sexism. We live in a truly twisted world. "the idea is that people actually value women less then men so they wouldn't recognize the bargain they're getting." What proof do you have of this? This isn't the 1950s anymore. Times have changed. In every company I have ever worked, both small and large, there were women at every level..and paid accordingly. Women have their equality and it's not good enough. They need to now dominate. In my experience in the workplace, women were way more sexist than men. Towards hiring both men and women. Men can't really do anything about it, because they aren't taken seriously. "This doesn't even make sense, since founders are not employed by VCs. But regarding the talking point you're repackaging, the idea is that people actually value women less then men so they wouldn't recognize the bargain they're getting." The wage-gap has been debunked multiple times. When you account for experience, education, position, and factor in that many women leave the workforce for different periods of time to have children, the pay is actually about 1-5% different. "An example I seem to remember is nurses vs. <some technical job I forgot>: both require comparable education, but nurses are paid 30% less per hour." It has nothing to do with sexism and more to do with the free market. Nurses are not really in that much demand and the supply is much greater, so you will get lower pay. Male nurses get paid 30% less as well, so I don't think you really have a point. If women want the same pay, they need to get the same experience and education as men and compete for the same positions. There are many high-paying fields dominated by women like veterinarians, biologists, and pharmacists. Nobody seems to care about diversity here. It's also interesting that women only fight for the cushy, office jobs. What about the extremely dangerous or messy jobs that men dominate? Garbage workers get paid over $100K in many big cities and I don't see any women fighting to get these jobs. "women may need these events so as to avoid being "grabbed by the pussy"" I suppose when people get 'grabbed by the pussies', they better hope the assaulter's wife won't use their political clout to humiliate them in public and deny them their day in court. "t's a false equivalence because these groups don't create injustice but try to make up for existing injustice. See also every argument about affirmative action ever." How doesn't it create injustice? You are excluding men from these organizations and painting all men with the same brush. This doesn't even meet the textbook definition of 'diversity'. The civil rights leaders of the 60s fought for inclusion. The leaders of today? They fight for more segregation through small, authoritarian groups. Affirmative action is a funny one because it actually makes me second-guess anyone that got their education as a result of it because it means they weren't good enough to get it on their own. This is a form of racism and is exactly why minority groups will continue to struggle in the US. You automatically assume that minorities are so stupid, they need to be given extra points to get into a university. "Let's say only a quarter of founders are women that gives about a 30% of an all-men panel of four (0.75^4). That's not significant based on the standard p-value cutoff, but I'm almost sure " Founders and VC aren't based on pure statistics and percentages of the population. It's very difficult to be successful enough to have VC money and there are many other factors at play here. It's also difficult for a founder to have an idea/company good enough to get VC money. I still never heard the business ideas from the woman in the article nor the other founders she claims were rejected. They could be terrible ideas. We shouldn't be so quick to assume it's sexism. People that are rejected in business or in life always want to blame other people for their own shortcomings.
new299 10y ago
According to the article he ignored any women in the audience (at least 2 according to the article)... The point of contention, as clearly stated in the article, was that he appeared to be actively looking for female founders... but making no actual effort. Your other points are largely irrelevant to the situation but... VCs are not the 100% rational actors you seem to think they are. They don't do DD the way you think they do DD. It's just not a 100% efficient, unbiased system. They're also in many cases not really looking for a "quick ROI". More often than not they're actively avoiding a "quick ROI"... Implicitly, I think it's likely that VCs /do/ care about race and gender. I think it's likely that many VCs have a subconscious picture of what a "good" founder looks like, and that incorporates gender/race biases.
- chinese_dan 10y ago
  "They're also in many cases not really looking for a "quick ROI". More often than not they're actively avoiding a "quick ROI"..." Every VC I've ever met is looking for an ROI within 1-2 years. Compared to the regular pace of a company where you could make a profit in 5 years, it's quick. "Implicitly, I think it's likely that VCs /do/ care about race and gender." Being called a 'sexist' or a 'racist' can mean the end of your company/career these days, so I seriously doubt a VC is going to have any bias towards women. I also don't really like when people use the term 'implicit racism' because it means you will never be able to prove it one way or another. You are trying to read the mind of a person and finding them guilty in the court of public opinion.

matt4077 10y ago

Oh wow, this reads like the index of a book on sexism in the 90ies... > I keep reading that women are paid 70 cents to the dollar to men. If this were actually true, why wouldn't the venture capitalists be fighting each other to get cheap labor? This doesn't even make sense, since founders are not employed by VCs. But regarding the talking point you're repackaging, the idea is that people actually value women less then men so they wouldn't recognize the bargain they're getting. But the topic is much broader including, for example, jobs traditionally reserved for women to have lower wages across the board, even when the requirements are the same. An example I seem to remember is nurses vs. <some technical job I forgot>: both require comparable education, but nurses are paid 30% less per hour. > After reading the article again, I'm also a little shocked that the author is trying to make a point about being excluded while at the same time pointing to an entire list of groups that are exclusive to a specific gender or sexual preference. That's answered elsewhere in the thread, but basically the thinking is it's ok because (a) women may need these events so as to avoid being "grabbed by the pussy" and (b) it's a false equivalence because these groups don't create injustice but try to make up for existing injustice. See also every argument about affirmative action ever. > Since there aren't as many women there in the first place [..] getting a pitch is mostly about having a good business idea and not about race or gender. This seems to be making the point that it's not statistically significant if of four chosen founders, none are women because the number of women in the population of founders is equally low. Let's say only a quarter of founders are women that gives about a 30% of an all-men panel of four (0.75^4). That's not significant based on the standard p-value cutoff, but I'm almost sure this isn't the author's first event and she may have gone into it with a certain `prior`.

chinese_dan 10y ago
"Oh wow, this reads like the index of a book on sexism in the 90ies..." I want equality for all and you try to tell me it's Sexism. We live in a truly twisted world. "the idea is that people actually value women less then men so they wouldn't recognize the bargain they're getting." What proof do you have of this? This isn't the 1950s anymore. Times have changed. In every company I have ever worked, both small and large, there were women at every level..and paid accordingly. Women have their equality and it's not good enough. They need to now dominate. In my experience in the workplace, women were way more sexist than men. Towards hiring both men and women. Men can't really do anything about it, because they aren't taken seriously. "This doesn't even make sense, since founders are not employed by VCs. But regarding the talking point you're repackaging, the idea is that people actually value women less then men so they wouldn't recognize the bargain they're getting." The wage-gap has been debunked multiple times. When you account for experience, education, position, and factor in that many women leave the workforce for different periods of time to have children, the pay is actually about 1-5% different. "An example I seem to remember is nurses vs. <some technical job I forgot>: both require comparable education, but nurses are paid 30% less per hour." It has nothing to do with sexism and more to do with the free market. Nurses are not really in that much demand and the supply is much greater, so you will get lower pay. Male nurses get paid 30% less as well, so I don't think you really have a point. If women want the same pay, they need to get the same experience and education as men and compete for the same positions. There are many high-paying fields dominated by women like veterinarians, biologists, and pharmacists. Nobody seems to care about diversity here. It's also interesting that women only fight for the cushy, office jobs. What about the extremely dangerous or messy jobs that men dominate? Garbage workers get paid over $100K in many big cities and I don't see any women fighting to get these jobs. "women may need these events so as to avoid being "grabbed by the pussy"" I suppose when people get 'grabbed by the pussies', they better hope the assaulter's wife won't use their political clout to humiliate them in public and deny them their day in court. "t's a false equivalence because these groups don't create injustice but try to make up for existing injustice. See also every argument about affirmative action ever." How doesn't it create injustice? You are excluding men from these organizations and painting all men with the same brush. This doesn't even meet the textbook definition of 'diversity'. The civil rights leaders of the 60s fought for inclusion. The leaders of today? They fight for more segregation through small, authoritarian groups. Affirmative action is a funny one because it actually makes me second-guess anyone that got their education as a result of it because it means they weren't good enough to get it on their own. This is a form of racism and is exactly why minority groups will continue to struggle in the US. You automatically assume that minorities are so stupid, they need to be given extra points to get into a university. "Let's say only a quarter of founders are women that gives about a 30% of an all-men panel of four (0.75^4). That's not significant based on the standard p-value cutoff, but I'm almost sure " Founders and VC aren't based on pure statistics and percentages of the population. It's very difficult to be successful enough to have VC money and there are many other factors at play here. It's also difficult for a founder to have an idea/company good enough to get VC money. I still never heard the business ideas from the woman in the article nor the other founders she claims were rejected. They could be terrible ideas. We shouldn't be so quick to assume it's sexism. People that are rejected in business or in life always want to blame other people for their own shortcomings.

new299 10y ago

According to the article he ignored any women in the audience (at least 2 according to the article)... The point of contention, as clearly stated in the article, was that he appeared to be actively looking for female founders... but making no actual effort. Your other points are largely irrelevant to the situation but... VCs are not the 100% rational actors you seem to think they are. They don't do DD the way you think they do DD. It's just not a 100% efficient, unbiased system. They're also in many cases not really looking for a "quick ROI". More often than not they're actively avoiding a "quick ROI"... Implicitly, I think it's likely that VCs /do/ care about race and gender. I think it's likely that many VCs have a subconscious picture of what a "good" founder looks like, and that incorporates gender/race biases.

chinese_dan 10y ago
"They're also in many cases not really looking for a "quick ROI". More often than not they're actively avoiding a "quick ROI"..." Every VC I've ever met is looking for an ROI within 1-2 years. Compared to the regular pace of a company where you could make a profit in 5 years, it's quick. "Implicitly, I think it's likely that VCs /do/ care about race and gender." Being called a 'sexist' or a 'racist' can mean the end of your company/career these days, so I seriously doubt a VC is going to have any bias towards women. I also don't really like when people use the term 'implicit racism' because it means you will never be able to prove it one way or another. You are trying to read the mind of a person and finding them guilty in the court of public opinion.