3 ms·

Presumed sexism in the wider market doesn’t mean actual sexism should take place during funding. It’s not a question of whether it’s priced in, it’s about givi

Presumed sexism in the wider market doesn’t mean actual sexism should take place during funding. It’s not a question of whether it’s priced in, it’s about giving everyone the same starting line. This was a really thoughtless comment in my opinion

sk5t 6y ago
You are arguing against a different idea than was presented.
- simonhamp 6y ago
  Not really. The previous comment was suggesting that sexism in the marketplace (the perception of a female CEO) is somehow being accounted for in a VCs decision. I’m arguing that VCs need to look at things differently - not just playing to the ‘strengths’ of the market just for a quick return, but actively creating opportunities for a perception change.
  - zdragnar 6y ago
    "is" and "should" are two different things, and make two different arguments. Not that I disagree with your argument, but pointing out it is on different grounds than what it was posted in response to.
Judgmentality 6y ago
The VCs are not inclined, obligated, or interested in "giving everyone the same starting line." They are interested in making profits. If it turns out that the world actually is sexist, racist, bigoted, or holds whatever unfair bias against potential founders - that means those founders are less likely to succeed and therefore a riskier investment!
- simonhamp 6y ago
  It would be interesting to try to quantify risk based on gender and assumed market bias. My hunch is that the risk factor this introduces is at least an order of magnitude less significant than other risk factors, like having an appropriate go to market strategy or proper customer base research.
- quickthrower2 6y ago
  Assuming your investment strategy is copying what worked in the past.
- AltonWells 6y ago
  This comment in and of itself is the same sexist nonsense that silently proliferates the problem. Saying that “well the world has these problems” and correlating it to “well the people facing the problems are just screwed” is disgusting. Also chalking up the entire role of a VC to capitalize for profit removes numerous secondary benefits of USING CAPITAL FOR GOOD. Check your biases before you post
  - ivalm 6y ago
    Original poster of this comment chain discussed how investing in female founders can be profit maximizing. The parent of your comment pointed out how it might not be because external sexism poses challenges to female founders which makes them riskier than their male counterparts. I agree that one can (even should) invest for reasons other than strictly profit maximization, but if one invests for profit maximization (as was discussed by comment chain op) then sexism in the broader market definitely has an effect that cannot be discounted.
GavinMcG 6y ago
The comment I replied to said: > If you can identify an overlooked segment of founders, you can invest in that group and get industry beating returns. I described a way that might be false. I did not make any moral claim, and certainly don't think that "actual sexism should take place during funding." Please be more thoughtful yourself.
- simonhamp 6y ago
  I wasn’t suggesting that you did make a moral claim. Your comment didn’t really address the concern that sexism at large is effectively causing sexism in the VC industry. If sexism towards female founders in the intended market is a major risk factor (I don’t believe it can be considered major, which is up for debate), then it’s a VCs opportunity to cut through to the core of what makes the _business_ and its _products_ viable... not simply to pass because the market won’t like a female founder as much as a male founder. But then that’s what a VC should be doing anyway. So founder gender and any perception of market bias towards that should become an increasingly insignificant factor in the funding process.

sk5t 6y ago

You are arguing against a different idea than was presented.

simonhamp 6y ago
Not really. The previous comment was suggesting that sexism in the marketplace (the perception of a female CEO) is somehow being accounted for in a VCs decision. I’m arguing that VCs need to look at things differently - not just playing to the ‘strengths’ of the market just for a quick return, but actively creating opportunities for a perception change.
- zdragnar 6y ago
  "is" and "should" are two different things, and make two different arguments. Not that I disagree with your argument, but pointing out it is on different grounds than what it was posted in response to.

Judgmentality 6y ago

The VCs are not inclined, obligated, or interested in "giving everyone the same starting line." They are interested in making profits. If it turns out that the world actually is sexist, racist, bigoted, or holds whatever unfair bias against potential founders - that means those founders are less likely to succeed and therefore a riskier investment!

simonhamp 6y ago
It would be interesting to try to quantify risk based on gender and assumed market bias. My hunch is that the risk factor this introduces is at least an order of magnitude less significant than other risk factors, like having an appropriate go to market strategy or proper customer base research.
quickthrower2 6y ago
Assuming your investment strategy is copying what worked in the past.
AltonWells 6y ago
This comment in and of itself is the same sexist nonsense that silently proliferates the problem. Saying that “well the world has these problems” and correlating it to “well the people facing the problems are just screwed” is disgusting. Also chalking up the entire role of a VC to capitalize for profit removes numerous secondary benefits of USING CAPITAL FOR GOOD. Check your biases before you post
- ivalm 6y ago
  Original poster of this comment chain discussed how investing in female founders can be profit maximizing. The parent of your comment pointed out how it might not be because external sexism poses challenges to female founders which makes them riskier than their male counterparts. I agree that one can (even should) invest for reasons other than strictly profit maximization, but if one invests for profit maximization (as was discussed by comment chain op) then sexism in the broader market definitely has an effect that cannot be discounted.

GavinMcG 6y ago

The comment I replied to said: > If you can identify an overlooked segment of founders, you can invest in that group and get industry beating returns. I described a way that might be false. I did not make any moral claim, and certainly don't think that "actual sexism should take place during funding." Please be more thoughtful yourself.

simonhamp 6y ago
I wasn’t suggesting that you did make a moral claim. Your comment didn’t really address the concern that sexism at large is effectively causing sexism in the VC industry. If sexism towards female founders in the intended market is a major risk factor (I don’t believe it can be considered major, which is up for debate), then it’s a VCs opportunity to cut through to the core of what makes the _business_ and its _products_ viable... not simply to pass because the market won’t like a female founder as much as a male founder. But then that’s what a VC should be doing anyway. So founder gender and any perception of market bias towards that should become an increasingly insignificant factor in the funding process.