3 ms·

When 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

When 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 ago
As 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 ago
  This 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.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

gizmo 8y ago

As 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 ago
This 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.