3 ms·

> There's a significant number of VCs and funds which only invest in female founders, which is a huge advantage. I understand your reasoning in saying this, bu

> There's a significant number of VCs and funds which only invest in female founders, which is a huge advantage. I understand your reasoning in saying this, but please try to understand that being taken seriously as a female founder is much more difficult being taken seriously as a male. These VCs exist to combat this preexisting inequality.

whatshisface 6y ago
Is the inequality between men and women, or between people on the inside who incidentally are mostly men, and people on the outside who are also mostly men but include a relatively higher fraction of women?
- whotheffknows 6y ago
  Are you aware of how many idiots have millions in funding for a dating app a chat app a blockchain or ai company that is just a knockoff of others with no working MVP and now many of those young male founders have thrown expensive parties rented expensive cars then bankrupted the company and chalked it up to a "downturn in the economy"? If a woman did this, she would be nailed to the cross in silicon valley for being irresponsible with money and never get funding again. If you believe just because noone gave you funding that there are not a ton of young males being thrown money in VC with low quality knockoff products you are wrong. Your views on this are incredibly anecdotal with broad claims about both make and female founders and provide no data and seem to just support you wanting to lick your wounds, which is exactly what selfish makes do, take a valid woman's platform (this article) and somehow turn it into a pity party about themselves and use that to claim all women have it easier.
  - whatshisface 6y ago
    How do people get funding for nothing-apps? If anything that's evidence that being on the inside is what matters. (P.S. You forgot to check the username, I'm not the parent commenter.)
globular-toast 6y ago
> being taken seriously as a female founder is much more difficult being taken seriously as a male Where's the evidence of this? Edit: Just think for a second about the fact that this comment, asking simply: "Where's the evidence for this?", is getting buried (currently on -3).

whatshisface 6y ago

Is the inequality between men and women, or between people on the inside who incidentally are mostly men, and people on the outside who are also mostly men but include a relatively higher fraction of women?

whotheffknows 6y ago
Are you aware of how many idiots have millions in funding for a dating app a chat app a blockchain or ai company that is just a knockoff of others with no working MVP and now many of those young male founders have thrown expensive parties rented expensive cars then bankrupted the company and chalked it up to a "downturn in the economy"? If a woman did this, she would be nailed to the cross in silicon valley for being irresponsible with money and never get funding again. If you believe just because noone gave you funding that there are not a ton of young males being thrown money in VC with low quality knockoff products you are wrong. Your views on this are incredibly anecdotal with broad claims about both make and female founders and provide no data and seem to just support you wanting to lick your wounds, which is exactly what selfish makes do, take a valid woman's platform (this article) and somehow turn it into a pity party about themselves and use that to claim all women have it easier.
- whatshisface 6y ago
  How do people get funding for nothing-apps? If anything that's evidence that being on the inside is what matters. (P.S. You forgot to check the username, I'm not the parent commenter.)

globular-toast 6y ago

> being taken seriously as a female founder is much more difficult being taken seriously as a male Where's the evidence of this? Edit: Just think for a second about the fact that this comment, asking simply: "Where's the evidence for this?", is getting buried (currently on -3).