5 ms·

Ah, but should YC make a concerted effort to fund startups with women because 'everyone will benefit eventually'? That's hardly fair.

by jlees 18y ago

SwellJoe 18y ago
YC may consider diversity in their portfolio a positive trait. They may also consider the PR value of female startup founders (which is worth considering...it is quite high). And, they may consider their reputation as a forward-thinking, out on the edge of progress, sort of investor. Maybe it's a trend, and maybe they want to be ahead of it. I don't think one needs to look at what good could come of it in the future to consider investing in female-led startups a good idea.
- jlees 18y ago
  Well, quite frankly, I'm glad YC look at other criteria. Positive discrimination is a terrible thing. Imagine being a woman funded by an investor making an effort to focus on female-led startups. The world knows you were only funded because of your chromosomes. Self-esteem is a big enough problem as it is!
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
  - rokhayakebe 18y ago
    I think a venture firm that privileges woman ran startups with a focus on women-markets would be great. After all who does most of the spending in a household? Remember that web apps represents only a tiny tiny fraction of consumers' expenditures.
    - jlees 18y ago
      If we're playing the household card, then there are plenty of women-led kitchen table startups that will never see, nor need, venture funding. There are also plenty of women-led startups that don't focus on female markets, and male-led startups that do, inadvertently or otherwise (time for a quote about how most car purchases are down to the woman in the household).
- zain 18y ago
  What exactly is "forward thinking" about funding startups based on biological traits of the founders instead of their skills, aptitudes, and achievements?
  - SwellJoe 18y ago
    Who said "instead of"?
    - gambling8nt 18y ago
      Simultaneous optimization of multiple functions is impossible in the general case. But if there is one function being optimized, then there is some trade-off being made, so that--to some extent--one parameter is being selected for instead of another.
      - SwellJoe 18y ago
        pg has said they fund as many great groups as they can find. So, if that's correct, then giving an additional point or two for being female founded, while assuming some base level of competence and dedication, is not "instead of" it is "in addition to". Note that we're all speculating here. We don't actually really know anything about YC and female founded companies (except that the number of female founders amongst YC companies is strikingly low, but is representative of the applicant pool).
        gambling8nt 18y ago
        Because PG has finite time, there are two fundamental possibilities at work here: (1) PG can find more "great groups" that he would want to fund than he has the time to work with. This, I expect, is almost certainly the case; PG then has to determine which amongst these groups of founders with whom to work. The question becomes, what function of the group of founders selected should be maximized. If you "give an additional point or two for being female founded" then the function you are optimizing is not just a matter of competence and dedication--either you aren't actually altering your behavior towards female founded groups, or there is some sufficiently pathological example of groups being very similar in which there is a female founded group that is slightly less competent/dedicated than a male only group competing over one remaining slot, and the slot is given to the female group. If no such example ever occurs in practice, then there is no point in giving female founded groups "an additional point or two" since it never altered the decision. (2) PG has more time available than "great groups" with whom to work. In this case, taking on additional groups simply because they are female-founded, in addition to being discriminatory, seems likely to be a net negative, assuming the original meaning to the term "great groups" was set to be at whatever level is necessary to have positive expected outcome. Looking at this dichotomy another way, we can think of PG's time as a market resource. In the first case, it is scarce, and should sell to the highest bidders (those with highest expected value, measured as utility for PG). In the second case, it is abundant, and every consumer gets what they need/want. In reality, it is probably either directly scarce (falling into the first category), or made scarce by the presence of other high utility alternatives (e.g., spending time with his family). In summary, there is no "in addition to" as far as criteria with respect to which you want to maximize. There can only be "instead of", or a (possibly zero) conversion factor. As a side note, in another comment on this page (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=591537 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=591537) PG noted that they don't ask the gender of founders when considering funding.
rokhayakebe 18y ago
I am not saying they should. I am saying if it happens.

Ah, but should YC make a concerted effort to fund startups with women because 'everyone will benefit eventually'? That's hardly fair.

by jlees 18y ago

Ah, but should YC make a concerted effort to fund startups with women because 'everyone will benefit eventually'? That's hardly fair.

SwellJoe 18y ago

YC may consider diversity in their portfolio a positive trait. They may also consider the PR value of female startup founders (which is worth considering...it is quite high). And, they may consider their reputation as a forward-thinking, out on the edge of progress, sort of investor. Maybe it's a trend, and maybe they want to be ahead of it. I don't think one needs to look at what good could come of it in the future to consider investing in female-led startups a good idea.

jlees 18y ago
Well, quite frankly, I'm glad YC look at other criteria. Positive discrimination is a terrible thing. Imagine being a woman funded by an investor making an effort to focus on female-led startups. The world knows you were only funded because of your chromosomes. Self-esteem is a big enough problem as it is!
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- rokhayakebe 18y ago
  I think a venture firm that privileges woman ran startups with a focus on women-markets would be great. After all who does most of the spending in a household? Remember that web apps represents only a tiny tiny fraction of consumers' expenditures.
  - jlees 18y ago
    If we're playing the household card, then there are plenty of women-led kitchen table startups that will never see, nor need, venture funding. There are also plenty of women-led startups that don't focus on female markets, and male-led startups that do, inadvertently or otherwise (time for a quote about how most car purchases are down to the woman in the household).
zain 18y ago
What exactly is "forward thinking" about funding startups based on biological traits of the founders instead of their skills, aptitudes, and achievements?
- SwellJoe 18y ago
  Who said "instead of"?
  - gambling8nt 18y ago
    Simultaneous optimization of multiple functions is impossible in the general case. But if there is one function being optimized, then there is some trade-off being made, so that--to some extent--one parameter is being selected for instead of another.
    - SwellJoe 18y ago
      pg has said they fund as many great groups as they can find. So, if that's correct, then giving an additional point or two for being female founded, while assuming some base level of competence and dedication, is not "instead of" it is "in addition to". Note that we're all speculating here. We don't actually really know anything about YC and female founded companies (except that the number of female founders amongst YC companies is strikingly low, but is representative of the applicant pool).
      - gambling8nt 18y ago
        Because PG has finite time, there are two fundamental possibilities at work here: (1) PG can find more "great groups" that he would want to fund than he has the time to work with. This, I expect, is almost certainly the case; PG then has to determine which amongst these groups of founders with whom to work. The question becomes, what function of the group of founders selected should be maximized. If you "give an additional point or two for being female founded" then the function you are optimizing is not just a matter of competence and dedication--either you aren't actually altering your behavior towards female founded groups, or there is some sufficiently pathological example of groups being very similar in which there is a female founded group that is slightly less competent/dedicated than a male only group competing over one remaining slot, and the slot is given to the female group. If no such example ever occurs in practice, then there is no point in giving female founded groups "an additional point or two" since it never altered the decision. (2) PG has more time available than "great groups" with whom to work. In this case, taking on additional groups simply because they are female-founded, in addition to being discriminatory, seems likely to be a net negative, assuming the original meaning to the term "great groups" was set to be at whatever level is necessary to have positive expected outcome. Looking at this dichotomy another way, we can think of PG's time as a market resource. In the first case, it is scarce, and should sell to the highest bidders (those with highest expected value, measured as utility for PG). In the second case, it is abundant, and every consumer gets what they need/want. In reality, it is probably either directly scarce (falling into the first category), or made scarce by the presence of other high utility alternatives (e.g., spending time with his family). In summary, there is no "in addition to" as far as criteria with respect to which you want to maximize. There can only be "instead of", or a (possibly zero) conversion factor. As a side note, in another comment on this page (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=591537 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=591537) PG noted that they don't ask the gender of founders when considering funding.

rokhayakebe 18y ago

I am not saying they should. I am saying if it happens.