17 ms·
A new $100M fund for women founders of color
- ryanx435 8y agoWhat's stopping people (who don't meet the criteria for this fund) from hiring a woman of color as their CEO specifically to raise capital from this fund?
- danieltillett 8y agoFronting is a very common approach to win government contracts so I can’t see why it won't be used here as well.
- anonthrow2018 8y agoI guess the question is if it's easier to get capital from this fund or to get it from the old boys network.
- romanovcode 8y agoWhat makes you think hiring to fill a certain minority-quota already does not happening for years?
- MagnitudeFC 8y agopresumably because you'd need to give up a lot of equity to this woman of color you hire to be the front... i don't have high hopes for VC funds like this.. seems more like a charitable grant than venture funding..1
- k__ 8y agoWould you? If minorities have a hard time to get such a job, you probably don't nees that much.
- ThrustVectoring 8y agoYou don't have to have an exit if you're a bit more creative with how you extract money out of a corporation you've set up for that purpose. The most ethical is through getting a solid salary paid out to you. Least is outright embezzlement - find a front who doesn't actually have your real name, convince them that the VCs can't know that this is actually your idea so they have to hide your involvement, and disappear with the cash leaving them holding the bag.
- detaro 8y agoIf the underlying assumption behind the creation of such a fund is correct, the fact that you'd massively decrease your chance of being funded by capital sources outside this one fund.
- jazoom 8y agoWhy not just self-identify as one of us? Who judges this anyway?
- anonthrow2018 8y agoI wonder if this applies to Asian women too? Or is it only for "underrepresented" women founders of color?
- grey-sunshine 8y agoWhat about Jewish women?
- radiantswirl 8y agoR O A S T E D Lol, your point is so good that it hurts.
- dang 8y agoPlease don't post unsubstantive comments here. Especially not on divisive topics, where the combination tends toward trolling. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- Freak_NL 8y agoThe 'person of color' moniker was introduced partly because in the US the adverb 'colored' tended to be used predominantly (if not exclusively) for black people. 'Person of color' was intended to be more inclusive. From what I understand, how inclusive that term is depends on who you ask and what their goal is in the discourse, but usually it includes all non-white people, where 'white' is used to imply someone of pure 'white' descent (whatever that means). So someone with a 'person of color' in his ancestry (not sure if there is a limit in the number of generations one should include) is a 'person of color' themself. So Asian women tend to be considered 'women of color', unless that doesn't suit the narrative of the person employing the term.
- blattimwind 8y agoI'm always fascinated by the racial phylogenies created/invented by some people purporting they are fighting racism.
- 8y ago
- rorrr 8y agoThat's sexist and racist. Imagine someone made a fund for only white males.
- mial 8y agoIf white males were systemically discriminated by their gender and their skin color, a fund like that would be a good idea yes.
- rorrr 8y agoYou can't fight discrimination with discrimination. You fight it with equality. Equal rights and access for everyone. Base it on merit, not the color of skin or the shape of the genitals.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- ddalex 8y agoBut they are discriminated systemically by being rejected for funds set up specifically to exclude them. I have an idea, let's keep everyone separated by skin tone, gender, and sexual preference. I'm sure this will end well /s.
- danso 8y agoHow is it that the vast majority of funded founders are white then, if they have been systematically discriminated by funders?
- rich-and-poor 8y agoIt is not that they have been systematically discriminated against; it is that they are being systematically discriminated against with this very fund. Let's get this straight: You are not cleared of being racist if you are discriminating against a group you deem as "in power". It is simply your careless redefinition of the word racism to apply not to ethnicity or nationality, but to power. This redefinition clears those not in power from being called racist when they explicitly discriminate on racial grounds. The reason why the majority of funded founders are white men is because white is the majority color in places where there is the most VC money, and men are less risk averse, especially in the more extreme male personality types.
- yetanother1980 8y agoThis is expressly racist and sexist.
- p49k 8y agoIs it racist and sexist to use private funds in order to counterbalance what is clearly a long history of racism and sexism in preferring white males in VC capital? You might have a point if the gender/racial makeup of founders were anywhere close to that of the population.
- programmernews3 8y agoYes, it is racist and sexist.
- p49k 8y agoOnly in a historical and societal vacuum is it racist and sexist.
- rich-and-poor 8y agoRacism does not depend on history or society, it depends on whether or not there is active racial discrimination. You imply that only the powerful may be racist, and that discrimination towards the racial or gender group "of power" is not only not racist, but a virtuous act.
- geomark 8y agoI don't think that's an argument that it is not sexist and racist. It is expressly so. The argument you are making is that it is justified to be expressly sexist and racist to counterbalance past sexism and racism.
- p49k 8y agoI disagree. To say something is sexist or racist would imply that the intent is to favor these groups due to a belief that they are superior, or due to a hatred toward the other groups rather than as a strategy to counter the effects of historical racism/sexism. You could argue they are discriminatory, though.
- chippy 8y agoThis will be flag killed, and most people flagging wont read the article.
- trax 8y agolmao
- RobertRoberts 8y agoWhen it comes to controversial subjects, I appreciate numbers. How many women of _all_ races (including white) are even looking for funding? What if there are 10 white women, 1 black woman and 30 asian women and no other race at all? (Just as a fake dataset to make a point...) This kind of targeted funding could abjectly affect perfectly qualified candidates just on the basis of race alone. Isn't that the very definition of racism? Even if it's supposed to fix a past injustice, when does two wrongs make a right?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- gizmo 8y agoAs it becomes easier for women of color to get funding more will apply for funding. Very few people want to play a game that seems rigged against them. The standard in silicon valley (and by its own admission, also the standard of YC) was that people who looked like Mark Zuckerberg would get funding. Meaning white, male Harvard/Stanford/MIT undergrads. As a result perfectly qualified candidates get rejected because they don't fit this picture. There is no reason to presume that people from certain races/ethnicities/genders make for better or worse startup founders. However, when certain demographics get basically never funded, then capable, motivated, qualified founders don't even bother to apply. Even when there is no actual discrimination the negative cycle continues. Breaking this cycle is a social good. It's like Hollywood. For a long time women of color never got offered leading roles. Movie Executives just didn't want to take the gamble. But as more and more movies hit the screen with women of color in leading roles the financial risk is lessened. Which results in more opportunities for WoC. This was never about how talented or motivated the actresses were. Hopefully we'll quickly get to the point where a WoC in a leading role is no longer noteworthy. Same for startups.
- RobertRoberts 8y agoThis is why I appreciate data and numbers. Otherwise discussions devolve to anecdotes, guessing and hyperbole. Sometimes this is enough, but when there's controversy, data/numbers are ideal place to start.
- lizardskull 8y agoAt what rgb value does a person of color end and a person of no color begin?
- jazoom 8y agoIt's a spectrum. The darker your skin is, the more funding you get.
- dang 8y agoRace trolling will also get you banned here. Please also don't do this again.
- jazoom 8y agoThis is not race trolling, dang. Why do you say it is? It highlights the absurdity of obsession with race. Colour of skin often doesn't even correlate well with race, and even if it did, it's a ridiculous measure to use as a guide for anything. To me it was obvious that lizardskull's comment has the same meaning. It seems other HN readers understood this. I'm not sure what "race trolling" is but if you think my comment suggests I am racist please delete it. That could not be further from the truth. I don't live in a part of the world that is totally obsessed with race and am sometimes bewildered by how Americans put everything down to race.
- dang 8y agoI call it race trolling because it doesn't even try to engage with another perspective, it just uses high-activation language to make a point snarkily. There's no place on HN for that. Regardless of what you think of the OP, there's a long history of people causing other people suffering around skin color and shades of skin color. Given that, playing glibly with this language to make a cheap point is guaranteed to make the discussion polarized and useless. By doing that, you damage this site. You need to clear a minimum bar for substantiveness if you want to post to HN, and that comment didn't come close.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- grew-grew-grew 8y agoIronically, in the context of this conversation, I’m both a white male in tech and also a minority in the city I live in. If someone set up a white male VC fund I wouldn’t touch it with a ten foot pole. I’ve dealt with plenty of racism, on the job and just living my life, but I understand that being a minority means dealing with (often unconscious) biases. Is this ok? No, people should be better. But I would never take a handout as contentious as this. The message here, regardless of intention, is that black women cannot compete on merit.
- didibus 8y agoWhat city is that?
- iovrthoughtthis 8y ago> The message here, regardless of intention, is that black women cannot compete on merit. You might infer that if you assume that everyone assesses merits without bias. I would argue that this is not the case and that black women’s merits are not assesses without bias.
- amaccuish 8y ago> But I would never take a handout as contentious as this. That's your choice. > is that black women cannot compete on merit. If woman of colour could compete on merit alone, I'm sure we'd see greater numbers in tech, but we don't. Unless you believe that people of colour are inherently incapable of these jobs, which I'm sure you don't :)
- beardicus 8y agoUgh. Almost every comment on this article is gross. What is wrong with you all? Targeted support of a minority population to correct for an unjust imbalance is a good thing.
- yetanother1980 8y agoI detest racism and sexism even when done by well meaning people. If this is a character flaw then I want more flaws. I am glad I got a chance to let you know that not everyone agrees with bigotry.
- consz 8y agoAs a white male -- presumably the victim of the fund mentioned in the OP -- could you explain to me what is bad about the way this fund is set up? I don't mean ideologically, but empirically what you think are negative consequences of it.
- yetanother1980 8y agoIt normalises racism and sexism. If it is OK to discriminate in one way on racial or gender grounds why not another? Let's get one thing clear. Just because you look like other people you don't get to speak for them. You don't represent all white males any more than the Grand Wizard of the KKK does. Your skin colour or gender have no bearing on this - and should have no bearing on your opinion on this.
- jamescostian 8y agoI think you may have missed when GP explicitly said >> I don't mean ideologically, but empirically That said, I disagree with your base claim that > It normalizes racism and sexism Those things are already normalized. The idea that everyone has the same opportunities and is treated the same is nice but not matched by reality. Pushing things in the direction they're already in makes the divide larger. Pushing things in the opposite direction will make the divide smaller - or at least, that's the hope here
- judofyr 8y agoFolks, can you please open a dictionary before you start complaining? > racism: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. It’s very clear that this fund is not created in the spirit of claiming women founders of color are superior to white men. You can call it “discrimination” or “unfair”; you can argue that it’s not good long term for either parts; you can claim that such an incentive doesn’t create the best products/companies. But please, make an argument, don’t just shout out “racism!!!!”
- slavak 8y agoFrom the same dictionary: sexism : Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex. Of course, referencing other (arguably more authoritative) dictionaries, one of the definitions for racism is also simply "discrimination based on race." Oops...
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- jamescostian 8y agoLinguistic prescriptivism adds no substance to an argument, it just wastes time on the fact that different people have different definitions. Try descriptivism out - instead of telling people what a word means, understand what they mean when they say a word (ignoring the fact that you disagree with their usage of that word), and argue against the substance of their message
- judofyr 8y agoSubstance of their message? I’m sorry, but when people comment nothing more than “That’s racist”, there’s not much substance. My comment was an attempt at encouraging people to post actual arguments, and not just shout out their feelings.
- 8y ago
- JAdamMoore 8y agoSounds racist AND sexist while managing to also be entirely hypocritical of the exact behaviors of what they are "fixing."
- scarface74 8y agoVC's always talk about "pattern matching" meaning they look for founders that look like other successful founders - that immediately biases them toward young White men.
- 0xBA5ED 8y ago"Oh sorry, this is the fund for coloreds. The fund for whites is over there."
- anonlady54321 8y agoWow, this comment thread went WAY PAST the intent of "sharing a link" as an information resource. TechCrunch (yes, TechCrunch) wrote an article about a venture capital fund available to women of color who want to become entrepreneurs. Period. No need to evaluate if it's racist or discriminatory. No need to make "you said" or "you reacted" comments. Read the article, learn more if the subject matter is of interest to you, and move on.
- stillsut 8y agoThere are currently two competing narratives about what is racist: On one side, it's considered racist to make decisions based on race. On the other side, it's considered racist to make decisions without considering race, and the history of power and oppression that comes with it. One side sees a productive way to move forward by not repeating the mistakes of the past. The other side sees a way to make the future better by correcting the mistakes of the past. It's one of the most difficult we face as both as a society and as individuals: often in literature a character will be driven to avenge a past injustice and at the height of narrative arc, will be forced to consider his motivations and the consequences of his goal. The YA novel A Long Way Down and the movie Blue Ruin both explore this concept poignantly, without ever giving us easy or generalizable answers. Because racial politics can be so mentally poisoning, a far more neutral thought experiment is to consider a fund reserved exclusively for funding military veterans. That's a kind of situation where almost everyone can see both sides to the issue: how can you deny their contribution and sacrifices? And yet how can you fail to see the unintended but inevitable consequences that creates?
- grosjona 8y agoI understand the intent of this fund but I think that it's both racist and sexist. Why doesn't someone create a VC fund for people with disabilities instead? Or maybe a fund for ugly people? Or a fund for socially awkward people? Or a fund for people who have a lisp? Or a fund for people who have bad posture? Or simply a fund for the underprivileged? Those would be a lot more fair. Life isn't fair to everyone. Some people just have to work much harder than others to get the same results. There is nothing that can be done about this. Trying to do something about this equates to discrimination based on arbitrary superficial features.