3 ms·

don't forget -Being non-male

by laurex 4y ago

luckylion 4y ago
If only Theranos had been founded by a man, they would've gotten funded and would've revolutionized personalized medicine.
- laurex 4y ago
  While tempted to say something snarky here (for example, “wait for it….”) I’ll just say that this comment makes zero sense to me. There is widely-available evidence that women-founded startups receive less than 2% of Venture funding. That one person VCs saw as “pattern-matching” enough to get funding was huckster doesn’t say anything about women’s general competence, nor paints a great picture of how VC funding is allocated.
  - luckylion 4y ago
    "red flag" = no deal. If "being a woman" meant you can't get a deal, there wouldn't be any women who get funded. That women-founded startups receive very little funding overall is also not surprising: there are very few of them (startups being defined narrowly: a company focused on hypergrowth and using VC). What do you expect, women founding x% of startups but getting x*10% of funding?
    - yieldcrv 4y ago
      not quite the low distribution isn't distributed across every VC portfolio, its across ALL VCs. which means that for MOST VC's, it is absolutely a "no deal", so far. we are completely aware that most of the decision makers don't consider themselves as racist and sexist in their hearts and minds, we are also completely aware that their reasoning lacks any meritocracy or quantitatively better investment outcomes, while also having outcomes that shut out demographics by race and sex.
      - luckylion 4y ago
        > the low distribution isn't distributed across every VC portfolio, its across ALL VCs. which means that for MOST VC's, it is absolutely a "no deal", so far. Again, that's expected, given there's few women founding startups and seeking VC. Of course, for each individual woman it'll feel different because they are a woman and have founded a startup and want VC funding and might not get it. But that's not different from how men experience it. Most of those don't get funding either, but if you only look at those who do get it and say "see, those are more", you (willfully) ignore all those who don't. You're comparing "men who successfully raised VC" to "all women who tried raising VC".
yieldcrv 4y ago
I was going to write "not male presenting" but nobody would see the comment with that much polarization
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- sqeaky 4y ago
  You were fine with racism but not sexism? That was the line. Or was it somehow a joke or satire even though many of us have heard exactly that message in a serious context before?
  - yieldcrv 4y ago
    the line was that "woman" wasn't accurate enough, cis-man dilutes the number of people that would listen, male wasn't accurate enough either, and male presenting was closest but even more obscure regarding what I'm actually talking about it

don't forget -Being non-male

by laurex 4y ago

don't forget -Being non-male

If only Theranos had been founded by a man, they would've gotten funded and would've revolutionized personalized medicine.

laurex 4y ago
While tempted to say something snarky here (for example, “wait for it….”) I’ll just say that this comment makes zero sense to me. There is widely-available evidence that women-founded startups receive less than 2% of Venture funding. That one person VCs saw as “pattern-matching” enough to get funding was huckster doesn’t say anything about women’s general competence, nor paints a great picture of how VC funding is allocated.
- luckylion 4y ago
  "red flag" = no deal. If "being a woman" meant you can't get a deal, there wouldn't be any women who get funded. That women-founded startups receive very little funding overall is also not surprising: there are very few of them (startups being defined narrowly: a company focused on hypergrowth and using VC). What do you expect, women founding x% of startups but getting x*10% of funding?
  - yieldcrv 4y ago
    not quite the low distribution isn't distributed across every VC portfolio, its across ALL VCs. which means that for MOST VC's, it is absolutely a "no deal", so far. we are completely aware that most of the decision makers don't consider themselves as racist and sexist in their hearts and minds, we are also completely aware that their reasoning lacks any meritocracy or quantitatively better investment outcomes, while also having outcomes that shut out demographics by race and sex.
    - luckylion 4y ago
      > the low distribution isn't distributed across every VC portfolio, its across ALL VCs. which means that for MOST VC's, it is absolutely a "no deal", so far. Again, that's expected, given there's few women founding startups and seeking VC. Of course, for each individual woman it'll feel different because they are a woman and have founded a startup and want VC funding and might not get it. But that's not different from how men experience it. Most of those don't get funding either, but if you only look at those who do get it and say "see, those are more", you (willfully) ignore all those who don't. You're comparing "men who successfully raised VC" to "all women who tried raising VC".

yieldcrv 4y ago

I was going to write "not male presenting" but nobody would see the comment with that much polarization

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
sqeaky 4y ago
You were fine with racism but not sexism? That was the line. Or was it somehow a joke or satire even though many of us have heard exactly that message in a serious context before?
- yieldcrv 4y ago
  the line was that "woman" wasn't accurate enough, cis-man dilutes the number of people that would listen, male wasn't accurate enough either, and male presenting was closest but even more obscure regarding what I'm actually talking about it