3 ms·
The article manages to use "just receive 1.3% of VC funding" without stating what amount would warrant no usage of "just". It would help if these kind of equity
by ominous 6y ago
The article manages to use "just receive 1.3% of VC funding" without stating what amount would warrant no usage of "just". It would help if these kind of equity driven articles made the effort of not counting on the naive heart of the reader to understand what is being said.
Sure, a value is less than another value and a sex difference is mentioned, so the reader is put on the spot to immediately understand that the values should be different. But how different?
Might as well count if there's an imbalance on north-south vs east-west crossings by sex on a city center, and then hope someone feels the need to conclude "but of course, they should be the same!".
- shalmanese 6y agoWhat do you think the value would be that wouldn't warrant putting just? How much do you think is the "fair" amount women should receive?
- ominous 6y agoYou assume the sex lens is how VC funds should be measured. > What do you think the value would be that wouldn't warrant putting just? If there were sex quotas for amount of funding and female founders got less than the law dictates, I'd understand a "just". If some known process we agree is fair and is expected to yield X but yields <X, I'd also not react at a "just". No such process exists for VC funding. Readers are being coerced into expecting a value to exist. > How much do you think is the "fair" amount women should receive? I did not realize VC funding was meant to be fair. Investors will have their reasons, startups will have their way of marketing themselves and people will have their network of contacts, to state 3 constraints. Have we reached the technocratic utopia where society is procedurally generated to be fair? No.