4 ms·

Paul Graham is probably not sexist, and if he's ageist, it's a product of his sampling bias. Most qualified 40+ founders are not going to be that interested in

Paul Graham is probably not sexist, and if he's ageist, it's a product of his sampling bias. Most qualified 40+ founders are not going to be that interested in the 6%-for-$15k type of deal that YC offers. Those terms are great for someone out of college; not as much for a seasoned 40+ entrepreneur. There are plenty of very qualified 50-year-old entrepreneurs out there, but I doubt they're applying to YC. I could be wrong; that's just my best guess. I'm not PG's biggest fan, although I admire his Lisp chops. Still, this attack on him is ridiculous. The interview shows him as a decent guy admitting he can't solve a difficult and complicated problem. Really, my feeling is, "Nothing to see here, move along". The truth is that even if Paul Graham were sexist, that wouldn't be such a big deal if the startup industry were healthy, because the biases of one influential individual shouldn't matter. Rather, the VC-funded world is seriously and systemically ill-- and the rarity of female founders is a symptom of that sickness-- and PG is just being made (completely unreasonably, IMO) a lightning rod, even though he's clearly one of the more reasonable (and probably one of the less sexist/racist/classist) investors out there.

larrys 13y ago
"50-year-old entrepreneurs" Are also less likely to need what YC offers. I know this because I am one of the people that help those younger people because of what I know already that they don't. I've actually run into people that I've helped that pay my bill by using a bookeeping service that they hire and outsource. While I am sure there are many reasons to do this (investors demand etc.) that was something that when you are bootstrapping (with the amount of bills you have to pay) you can just do in a few hours on the side generally. (This is separate from a payroll service which is something that is time consuming and a pain for sure.)
tptacek 13y ago
That would be a more compelling point if the gender imbalance was confined to company founders. But it isn't: the whole industry is rife with it, both in startups and on dev teams at bigcos. Go to an F-500 bank sometime and compare the IT team with a dev team: the IT team will have many more women than the dev team will. It's something about software development in general; it's not the fault of VCs (which I'm not a fan of either).
- michaelochurch 13y ago
  I think that the cultural impulses that exclude women, minorities, and older people might come mostly from on-the-ground male immaturity ("brogrammers"). But I blame the VCs for encouraging that cultural tendency instead of muting it. They're supposed to be the adults, and they fail at that. One of the issues that software development has, I think, is the combination of hard-to-audit work with a short audit cycle. Most professionals get a couple years of work done before they're subjected to a serious, "are you capable of moving up?" audit. Lawyers are tracked for partnership or out at 4 years, which means they get a large number of chances to prove that they're partner material, and the long audit cycle takes out a lot of the noise. In software engineering, especially with the fast-firing culture, there's less time to prove oneself, and you have to start beating your chest and looking impressive before you have time to actually do something impressive. This tends to favor people with large egos, which turns a lot of women off to the industry.
crassus 13y ago
Paul's done more good for people of all human subgroups - "protected" or unprotected - than any of the commentariat. But we live in a culture that gives power to Social Justice Warriors who haven't done a damn thing. Why do we privilege the talkers over the doers? We're moving into a time where right ideology matters above all else. Something ugly is happening in America. If Paul Graham worked for someone else, he'd be fired by now[1]. That's sad, as everything he's said has been thoughtful and in good faith. None of it should be out of bounds for adult discussion. We live in a time when it's best to shut up if you know what's good for you. And that's sad. [1] http://handleshaus.wordpress.com/2013/12/26/bullied-and-badgered-pressured-and-purged/ http://handleshaus.wordpress.com/2013/12/26/bullied-and-badg...
- tptacek 13y ago
  I keep seeing comments like this and thinking about how easy it is to caricature any effort; for instance, people manage to do the same thing to Watsi, which should be an unimpeachable project. Are there do-nothing "Social Justice Warriors"? I'm sure there are. What's your point? By focusing on them to the exclusion of all else, what you're really demonstrating is that you're not interested in understanding the complaint. Why is ignorance supposed to be a compelling argument?
  - crassus 13y ago
    Social Justice Warriors are shrinking the bounds of possible thought and tarnishing people's reputations. If you're not self-employed, they can get you fired. I'm an old-fashioned liberal: I believe that thoughtful, free discussion leads to improving our knowledge of the world. So first of all, SJWs are the enemy of free thought and they have turned their eyes towards tech. I hate to see the enemy wielding power or gaining in it. Secondly, I agree it is useful to introspect into tech culture and hiring practices to make sure we are not turning away good candidates. But we cannot judge the fairness of a hiring process solely by results because the hiring process doesn't control the larger culture that a person grows up in. If the cartoons kids watch at age 8 only have pimply male geeks in tech roles and as a result your startup has a skewed gender ratio 14 years later, that doesn't make the startup founders a witch, oops I mean sexist. Changing the culture is a monumental task, but the startup community is not shying away from it. They are investing in early childhood education and other initiatives to give all people the opportunity to code. But the fruits of these projects will be long-term. In the meantime, I want people to be able to discuss the issue openly and honestly without being attacked/fired, because I believe that makes us most effective and I believe that is what is right. The SJWs looking to burn witches aren't adding anything and they can go to hell.
zw123456 13y ago
I am not sure if PG is an ageist, I don't know him, but I do know the funding levels that YC provides and most 40+ founders I know would be able to simply draw that amount out of savings easily, so it would not make sense for someone like that to bother with YC. I know a couple of 40+ entrepreneurs and most of them had no trouble getting funding on their own. I think YC is designed more as a micro funding source which would naturally target the young who typically do not have much money as they are starting out.
- michaelochurch 13y ago
  This was essentially my point. If PG is "ageist" in funding decisions, it's because most credible 40+ founders can already cover a few months of living expenses. I do think that PG has been tied in (probably not through any fault of his own) with the age-discrimination culture of the Valley. But that's not PG's fault and he can't really do anything about it anyway.
  - zw123456 13y ago
    I agree with your point about an "ageist" culture in the valley. An interesting idea I think would be a funding group organized around older entrepreneurs. With so many trying to emulate the success of the valley, maybe the opportunity is in targeting what the valley is missing?

larrys 13y ago

"50-year-old entrepreneurs" Are also less likely to need what YC offers. I know this because I am one of the people that help those younger people because of what I know already that they don't. I've actually run into people that I've helped that pay my bill by using a bookeeping service that they hire and outsource. While I am sure there are many reasons to do this (investors demand etc.) that was something that when you are bootstrapping (with the amount of bills you have to pay) you can just do in a few hours on the side generally. (This is separate from a payroll service which is something that is time consuming and a pain for sure.)

tptacek 13y ago

That would be a more compelling point if the gender imbalance was confined to company founders. But it isn't: the whole industry is rife with it, both in startups and on dev teams at bigcos. Go to an F-500 bank sometime and compare the IT team with a dev team: the IT team will have many more women than the dev team will. It's something about software development in general; it's not the fault of VCs (which I'm not a fan of either).

michaelochurch 13y ago
I think that the cultural impulses that exclude women, minorities, and older people might come mostly from on-the-ground male immaturity ("brogrammers"). But I blame the VCs for encouraging that cultural tendency instead of muting it. They're supposed to be the adults, and they fail at that. One of the issues that software development has, I think, is the combination of hard-to-audit work with a short audit cycle. Most professionals get a couple years of work done before they're subjected to a serious, "are you capable of moving up?" audit. Lawyers are tracked for partnership or out at 4 years, which means they get a large number of chances to prove that they're partner material, and the long audit cycle takes out a lot of the noise. In software engineering, especially with the fast-firing culture, there's less time to prove oneself, and you have to start beating your chest and looking impressive before you have time to actually do something impressive. This tends to favor people with large egos, which turns a lot of women off to the industry.

crassus 13y ago

Paul's done more good for people of all human subgroups - "protected" or unprotected - than any of the commentariat. But we live in a culture that gives power to Social Justice Warriors who haven't done a damn thing. Why do we privilege the talkers over the doers? We're moving into a time where right ideology matters above all else. Something ugly is happening in America. If Paul Graham worked for someone else, he'd be fired by now[1]. That's sad, as everything he's said has been thoughtful and in good faith. None of it should be out of bounds for adult discussion. We live in a time when it's best to shut up if you know what's good for you. And that's sad. [1] http://handleshaus.wordpress.com/2013/12/26/bullied-and-badgered-pressured-and-purged/ http://handleshaus.wordpress.com/2013/12/26/bullied-and-badg...

tptacek 13y ago
I keep seeing comments like this and thinking about how easy it is to caricature any effort; for instance, people manage to do the same thing to Watsi, which should be an unimpeachable project. Are there do-nothing "Social Justice Warriors"? I'm sure there are. What's your point? By focusing on them to the exclusion of all else, what you're really demonstrating is that you're not interested in understanding the complaint. Why is ignorance supposed to be a compelling argument?
- crassus 13y ago
  Social Justice Warriors are shrinking the bounds of possible thought and tarnishing people's reputations. If you're not self-employed, they can get you fired. I'm an old-fashioned liberal: I believe that thoughtful, free discussion leads to improving our knowledge of the world. So first of all, SJWs are the enemy of free thought and they have turned their eyes towards tech. I hate to see the enemy wielding power or gaining in it. Secondly, I agree it is useful to introspect into tech culture and hiring practices to make sure we are not turning away good candidates. But we cannot judge the fairness of a hiring process solely by results because the hiring process doesn't control the larger culture that a person grows up in. If the cartoons kids watch at age 8 only have pimply male geeks in tech roles and as a result your startup has a skewed gender ratio 14 years later, that doesn't make the startup founders a witch, oops I mean sexist. Changing the culture is a monumental task, but the startup community is not shying away from it. They are investing in early childhood education and other initiatives to give all people the opportunity to code. But the fruits of these projects will be long-term. In the meantime, I want people to be able to discuss the issue openly and honestly without being attacked/fired, because I believe that makes us most effective and I believe that is what is right. The SJWs looking to burn witches aren't adding anything and they can go to hell.

zw123456 13y ago

I am not sure if PG is an ageist, I don't know him, but I do know the funding levels that YC provides and most 40+ founders I know would be able to simply draw that amount out of savings easily, so it would not make sense for someone like that to bother with YC. I know a couple of 40+ entrepreneurs and most of them had no trouble getting funding on their own. I think YC is designed more as a micro funding source which would naturally target the young who typically do not have much money as they are starting out.

michaelochurch 13y ago
This was essentially my point. If PG is "ageist" in funding decisions, it's because most credible 40+ founders can already cover a few months of living expenses. I do think that PG has been tied in (probably not through any fault of his own) with the age-discrimination culture of the Valley. But that's not PG's fault and he can't really do anything about it anyway.
- zw123456 13y ago
  I agree with your point about an "ageist" culture in the valley. An interesting idea I think would be a funding group organized around older entrepreneurs. With so many trying to emulate the success of the valley, maybe the opportunity is in targeting what the valley is missing?