3 ms·

I think that what you're missing is that while the fact that there's a lack of female hacker-founders is true…only looking for hacker-founders further solidifie

I think that what you're missing is that while the fact that there's a lack of female hacker-founders is true…only looking for hacker-founders further solidifies a blatantly sexist problem in the tech industry. So his statement is right—but the attitude is wrong and it is pure blame-shifting. Facts like this can be correct in the small, but wrong (not incorrect, but…ill-intentioned) in the large. The issue is about the larger problem, not the smaller problem. pg has been defending the smaller problem (the facts of the analysis) while ignoring the larger problem. At least in the articles I read this evening (I was on vacation last week when this apparently broken). It's a systemic/societal problem, and YC certainly can't fix it on its own, and has limited ability to fix it in any case. They started doing something different with Watsi…maybe there's something they can do different for female founders (as pg himself has suggested that there's another essay coming, plus some announcements from YC in that direction in any case).

wvenable 13y ago
Looking for hacker-founders is what YC does. That is its reason for existence. It's not an employer. It's not a general investment firm. It's not a school. It invests in hacker-founders. PG expertise is hacker-founders. Only looking for hacker-founders isn't sexist, in of itself. If there is a larger problem in society, that's not really PG's domain of expertise and we shouldn't expect it to be.
- halostatue 13y ago
  I think you're missing the point that I'm making that only looking for hacker-founders (and landing mostly with young men) is sexist in and of itself because it both perpetuates existing stereotypes and reinforces sexist roles. Note that I'm not saying that YC should change its selection criteria—I understand what they're looking for and why. But they don't get to wash their hands of this societal/systemic problem and say that it's Just That Way. Change has to be proactive. YC is in a position to help make a difference. It has disproportionately large mindshare in the tech industry. Maybe it's next non-profit needs to be something to address the gender imbalance in tech.
  - wvenable 13y ago
    You are just saying that women can't be hacker-founders but you don't think YC needs to change it's selection criteria. What you really want is for YC to be more charitable to support women. That's fine. But at least be clear what you are talking about. Personally, I don't know exactly what PG is doing to support women in technology right now. But from what I gather it's not nothing. He's probably doing more than any of us. Maybe you should get off your high horse and stop telling other people what they should be doing to solve the problem.
    - halostatue 13y ago
      > Maybe you should get off your high horse and stop telling other people what they should be doing to solve the problem. If that’s what you think I’m doing, then I have either failed to make myself clear or you have failed to comprehend what I’ve said. I’ll be charitable and assume the former. 1. There is no legal obligation for YC to change its selection criteria. 2. I am not looking to have YC change its selection criteria. 3. As long as YC has selection criteria that are inherently biased (as the YC selection criteria are[a]), the only thing that I’m saying is that they can’t pretend that the criteria aren't biased against women (and certain visible minorities). I’m not on a high horse and telling YC to change things. I don’t expect them to be more “forgiving” of female founders not meeting their extant criteria. But it’s socially irresponsible to say that “I can't do anything about it, because the problem happened ten years ago.” I’m pointing out that while this is a thorny problem not of YC’s creation, there is an opportunity and perhaps a social responsibility that they have to encourage the people they fund to help fix this problem for the young women coming up five or ten years from now. [a] As stated before: the bias behind the YC selection criteria is a fact, and it's admitted by PG himself in his response to this debacle. Selection criteria that expects someone to have ~10 years “hacking” experience prior to choosing YC is biased heavily in favour of people who already have accumulated advantages that permit them that exploration time (and are encouraged to do so in that particular direction) and against people who do not. This means that women are underrepresented because technical/engineering disciplines are not seen as “acceptable” for girls to do; certain visible minorities are underrepresented because, at least in America, race is strongly correlated to income and corresponding free time. These are facts.

wvenable 13y ago

Looking for hacker-founders is what YC does. That is its reason for existence. It's not an employer. It's not a general investment firm. It's not a school. It invests in hacker-founders. PG expertise is hacker-founders. Only looking for hacker-founders isn't sexist, in of itself. If there is a larger problem in society, that's not really PG's domain of expertise and we shouldn't expect it to be.

halostatue 13y ago
I think you're missing the point that I'm making that only looking for hacker-founders (and landing mostly with young men) is sexist in and of itself because it both perpetuates existing stereotypes and reinforces sexist roles. Note that I'm not saying that YC should change its selection criteria—I understand what they're looking for and why. But they don't get to wash their hands of this societal/systemic problem and say that it's Just That Way. Change has to be proactive. YC is in a position to help make a difference. It has disproportionately large mindshare in the tech industry. Maybe it's next non-profit needs to be something to address the gender imbalance in tech.
- wvenable 13y ago
  You are just saying that women can't be hacker-founders but you don't think YC needs to change it's selection criteria. What you really want is for YC to be more charitable to support women. That's fine. But at least be clear what you are talking about. Personally, I don't know exactly what PG is doing to support women in technology right now. But from what I gather it's not nothing. He's probably doing more than any of us. Maybe you should get off your high horse and stop telling other people what they should be doing to solve the problem.
  - halostatue 13y ago
    > Maybe you should get off your high horse and stop telling other people what they should be doing to solve the problem. If that’s what you think I’m doing, then I have either failed to make myself clear or you have failed to comprehend what I’ve said. I’ll be charitable and assume the former. 1. There is no legal obligation for YC to change its selection criteria. 2. I am not looking to have YC change its selection criteria. 3. As long as YC has selection criteria that are inherently biased (as the YC selection criteria are[a]), the only thing that I’m saying is that they can’t pretend that the criteria aren't biased against women (and certain visible minorities). I’m not on a high horse and telling YC to change things. I don’t expect them to be more “forgiving” of female founders not meeting their extant criteria. But it’s socially irresponsible to say that “I can't do anything about it, because the problem happened ten years ago.” I’m pointing out that while this is a thorny problem not of YC’s creation, there is an opportunity and perhaps a social responsibility that they have to encourage the people they fund to help fix this problem for the young women coming up five or ten years from now. [a] As stated before: the bias behind the YC selection criteria is a fact, and it's admitted by PG himself in his response to this debacle. Selection criteria that expects someone to have ~10 years “hacking” experience prior to choosing YC is biased heavily in favour of people who already have accumulated advantages that permit them that exploration time (and are encouraged to do so in that particular direction) and against people who do not. This means that women are underrepresented because technical/engineering disciplines are not seen as “acceptable” for girls to do; certain visible minorities are underrepresented because, at least in America, race is strongly correlated to income and corresponding free time. These are facts.