3 ms·

Almost all VC funding is done through introduction. That's the way this game works. It's one of the reasons so many people apply to YC. As a VC, you spend your

Almost all VC funding is done through introduction. That's the way this game works. It's one of the reasons so many people apply to YC. As a VC, you spend your days trying to figure out which teams will be successful in the future (even if they've never created a company before) and sometimes all you have is a trusted recommendation to work from. I can't think of a single VC who brags about how few people they know, how small their network is, and how they can't think outside the box to reach the person they don't know who could change the destiny of your company. What we all agree on is that it is a good thing for more women to be in tech. Here's an influential VC who is ACTIVELY trying to encourage more balance in his applicant pool and he gets attacked. Seriously, what's the endgame here? Discrimination exists. He's one of the good ones trying to make it better. The real discrimination is the stuff you don't see in a blog post. Not cool attacking someone trying to do the right thing.

Semiapies 16y ago
Let's unpack the things you say here, starting from the end: "Not cool attacking someone trying to do the right thing" Of course, the only people I actually attack are people here on HN who are very much hostile to trying to do the right thing. "Here's an influential VC who is ACTIVELY trying to encourage more balance in his applicant pool and he gets attacked" I haven't attacked him, nor do I see anyone else in this thread attacking him. His chosen methodology got criticized. Is someone trying to do something right immune from criticism? No. Now, is he trying to do something right in the first place? Perhaps. He does seem to be uneasy at a male-dominated pool of responses. However, his response to seeing this pattern is to assume that this represents a failure on the part of some unknown women who did not respond. That's a remarkable and dubious attitude to strike; taken most charitably, it's a startlingly naive one. "sometimes all you have is a trusted recommendation to work from" The cold fact is that someone not within a network or who cannot easily enter that network is disadvantaged by this requirement. In this case, it's a strongly majority-male network that shows quite a bit of discomfort and sometimes outright hostility towards women trying to enter it. So, I will say to you: 1) Blaming women for the fact that you've set up filters that are biased against them? Uncool on the VC's part. 2) Jumping on someone pointing out those biased filters? Uncool on your part.
- jeremymims 16y ago
  Sigh. You do know that almost all of us are on your side, right? Do you have any idea how often the topic of the difficulty of hiring women comes up when I talk to fellow entrepreneurs (male and female)? Personally, I've tried recruiting six talented female programmers to apply to Y Combinator. None have. Two of them took jobs at Goldman Sachs. One of them was one of the most talented programmers I've ever met. If you want to change the game, you've got to get in it. The fact of the matter is that VC is an institution that's incredibly biased against anyone who doesn't have connections. The year before I went through Y Combinator, I emailed 30 VCs our pitch deck. Two responded. The day after demo day, we had offers for meetings with half. Today, I have no trouble setting up meetings. VCs simply don't have time to review every company that might come their way. So they use intros and recommendations as short cuts. This isn't actually a male or female issue. Very few people have the requisite connections to break into this group. Isolating it to a female issue alone probably minimizes the seriousness of the problem. That's why I love when a VC like Bryce reaches out and gives people a way to even get in the door without having said connections. This is a huge improvement for those willing to take advantage of it. Seriously, I'm open to suggestions. What solutions do you have that would get more women into the game? We both agree that it would be a good thing.
  - Semiapies 16y ago
    "Sigh. You do know that almost all of us are on your side, right?" If you mean random people on HN, definitely not. Nearly every thread on women in the industry here devolves into rants about how stupid, weak, and whiny women are, and many or most of the posters who don't drop into open misogyny instead pretend we're in a perfectly equal world (or, at least, a perfectly equal industry) and that sexism is a moot issue that only conniving lib'ruls try to whip up out of nothing. Now, if you mean people you work with, I'm willing to believe they'd like to do the right thing. However, a big part of actually DOING the right thing is entertaining the possibility that you're doing it wrong, and that involves not being defensive. That includes such things as not trying to foist the blame on the women themselves (as TFA did) and not trying to shout down people who point out problems (as you did). "This isn't actually a male or female issue" It's not a strictly racial or sexual issue, either, but this is still a setup where a bunch of mostly straight white guys will end up giving much better odds to similar folks than they will give to equally talented people who aren't straight, white, and/or guys. Not "there are fewer of them in the first place", but straight-up "we are making this harder for you if you're gay, black, or a woman". Suggestions? 1) Think of it as marketing. Try to look at finding talented people beyond the standard pool of straight white guys as something that's on you in order to make more money, not some problem you're saddled with that just benefits them. Look at the positions you're offering as something you're trying to sell and see how attractive they are - and think of things like "almost no women apply" as "we're failing to attract a major segment of the market". 2) Don't emulate TFA. Don't patronize the people you say you want to recruit. Would you try to sell something by squinting at customers who turned you down and saying, "Let's try this again"? That sure wouldn't work on me, why would that work on women? 3) Keying into that "possibility that you're doing it wrong" - when you can, find out why women aren't applying for something. If you had good rapport with one or more of those six programmers you mentioned, why did she or they not want to apply to Y Combinator? They all had reasons.

Semiapies 16y ago

Let's unpack the things you say here, starting from the end: "Not cool attacking someone trying to do the right thing" Of course, the only people I actually attack are people here on HN who are very much hostile to trying to do the right thing. "Here's an influential VC who is ACTIVELY trying to encourage more balance in his applicant pool and he gets attacked" I haven't attacked him, nor do I see anyone else in this thread attacking him. His chosen methodology got criticized. Is someone trying to do something right immune from criticism? No. Now, is he trying to do something right in the first place? Perhaps. He does seem to be uneasy at a male-dominated pool of responses. However, his response to seeing this pattern is to assume that this represents a failure on the part of some unknown women who did not respond. That's a remarkable and dubious attitude to strike; taken most charitably, it's a startlingly naive one. "sometimes all you have is a trusted recommendation to work from" The cold fact is that someone not within a network or who cannot easily enter that network is disadvantaged by this requirement. In this case, it's a strongly majority-male network that shows quite a bit of discomfort and sometimes outright hostility towards women trying to enter it. So, I will say to you: 1) Blaming women for the fact that you've set up filters that are biased against them? Uncool on the VC's part. 2) Jumping on someone pointing out those biased filters? Uncool on your part.

jeremymims 16y ago
Sigh. You do know that almost all of us are on your side, right? Do you have any idea how often the topic of the difficulty of hiring women comes up when I talk to fellow entrepreneurs (male and female)? Personally, I've tried recruiting six talented female programmers to apply to Y Combinator. None have. Two of them took jobs at Goldman Sachs. One of them was one of the most talented programmers I've ever met. If you want to change the game, you've got to get in it. The fact of the matter is that VC is an institution that's incredibly biased against anyone who doesn't have connections. The year before I went through Y Combinator, I emailed 30 VCs our pitch deck. Two responded. The day after demo day, we had offers for meetings with half. Today, I have no trouble setting up meetings. VCs simply don't have time to review every company that might come their way. So they use intros and recommendations as short cuts. This isn't actually a male or female issue. Very few people have the requisite connections to break into this group. Isolating it to a female issue alone probably minimizes the seriousness of the problem. That's why I love when a VC like Bryce reaches out and gives people a way to even get in the door without having said connections. This is a huge improvement for those willing to take advantage of it. Seriously, I'm open to suggestions. What solutions do you have that would get more women into the game? We both agree that it would be a good thing.
- Semiapies 16y ago
  "Sigh. You do know that almost all of us are on your side, right?" If you mean random people on HN, definitely not. Nearly every thread on women in the industry here devolves into rants about how stupid, weak, and whiny women are, and many or most of the posters who don't drop into open misogyny instead pretend we're in a perfectly equal world (or, at least, a perfectly equal industry) and that sexism is a moot issue that only conniving lib'ruls try to whip up out of nothing. Now, if you mean people you work with, I'm willing to believe they'd like to do the right thing. However, a big part of actually DOING the right thing is entertaining the possibility that you're doing it wrong, and that involves not being defensive. That includes such things as not trying to foist the blame on the women themselves (as TFA did) and not trying to shout down people who point out problems (as you did). "This isn't actually a male or female issue" It's not a strictly racial or sexual issue, either, but this is still a setup where a bunch of mostly straight white guys will end up giving much better odds to similar folks than they will give to equally talented people who aren't straight, white, and/or guys. Not "there are fewer of them in the first place", but straight-up "we are making this harder for you if you're gay, black, or a woman". Suggestions? 1) Think of it as marketing. Try to look at finding talented people beyond the standard pool of straight white guys as something that's on you in order to make more money, not some problem you're saddled with that just benefits them. Look at the positions you're offering as something you're trying to sell and see how attractive they are - and think of things like "almost no women apply" as "we're failing to attract a major segment of the market". 2) Don't emulate TFA. Don't patronize the people you say you want to recruit. Would you try to sell something by squinting at customers who turned you down and saying, "Let's try this again"? That sure wouldn't work on me, why would that work on women? 3) Keying into that "possibility that you're doing it wrong" - when you can, find out why women aren't applying for something. If you had good rapport with one or more of those six programmers you mentioned, why did she or they not want to apply to Y Combinator? They all had reasons.