8 ms·

It sounds like your saying, "Why isn't there a VC firm that states outright you might be sexually harassed to receive funding" How are you possibly surprised t

by ZoF 12y ago

It sounds like your saying, "Why isn't there a VC firm that states outright you might be sexually harassed to receive funding" How are you possibly surprised that isn't a thing...? Of course it's not and never could or should be. You're comment is being down-voted because it's pretty ridiculous; the extremely low possibility(non-existant) coupled with the offensive nature of the concept as a whole makes it mind-boggling that someone would even consider it worth pondering in the first place.

angersock 12y ago
So, let's actually explore the idea a bit, and you'll see that it actually is not completely worth dismissing outright. One of the big problems with unwanted romantic advances is that they can come unexpectedly: you're there to do a deal, and the other person is trying to find a way of getting in your pants; you give out your number for business, other person calls you with non-business propositions. It's stressful and annoying, especially with the power imbalance one sees with investment. So, let's go ahead and start a firm (we'll tongue-in-cheek refer to it as SugarVC) whose deal to founders is straight up "We will fund you if you date us and/or return sexual favors". Let's assume all the contractual niceties are tied up clearly (hah) and in good faith (hah hah). What might we see from this? First, sexual harassment changes somewhat, because if you're dealing with SugarVC you know what you're getting into...you're not going to give out phone numbers, for example, that you can't shut off. Second, other investors know that a deal that didn't pan out or was passed over by SugarVC probably was because they didn't get a hookup out of it--not because of some inherent flaw in the business or numbers. In some ways, that's preferable to fixing the power imbalance because it could help limit reputational damage: failing to get funding at such a firm probably doesn't have the same network effects. Third, you probably see that the people getting funded are more attractive than usual, not selected for business viability but for being a better catch/trophy (deplorable, but bear with me). That being the case, we see that pretty people get more/safer funding guarantees. The possible effect of that is you end up with CEOs who are more presentable in public (simply because they're more attractive) and hence have a marketing/networking advantage--the actual business stuff being handled by a firm appointee or suggested hire, if they're serious about their investment as well. Arguably, this is actually not a terrible deal, if you believe that sales/marketing/networking beats out product. There are some other interesting ramifications of such a firm--so, let's not dismiss it out of hand.
- tptacek 12y ago
  I speak I think for many people on HN when I say that at least on this thread, in this context, in this discussion, in these circumstances, this idea should be dismissed out of hand. Let's stipulate you just want to have an interesting intellectual conversation. Can we have it some other time?
  - StandardFuture 12y ago
    >Can we have it some other time? No, this 'intellectual conversation' should never happen. The people involved in any sort of conversation of this type(as I am sure many have happened in the past) will only dull their sympathy for people who do have to struggle/contend with this happening to them. It's morally disgusting and I could care less about your definition of 'morality'.
    - bmelton 12y ago
      Explaining my downvote: The idea that scholarly discussions should ever be disregarded as insensitive is, in my opinion, pure absurdity. I don't disagree that this isn't the right time for it (though I don't fault angersock for that), nor do I disagree that it might dull the sympathies of some - regardless, I completely reject that as a valid reason for avoiding an exchange of ideas driven by intellect.
      - StandardFuture 12y ago
        The exchanging of ideas is the definition of conversation itself, it is not particular to 'scholarly discussions'. That alone completely negates your point. However, I understand what you are trying to say. You are worried that the dismissal of conversation is a bad attitude towards progress. That is true. BUT that is not what is happening here. The premise was already set for what this conversation would be about. You should think of my rhetoric as a part of the conversation itself. Just because I weighed in as "going further accomplishes nothing", does not make that a a wrong conclusion. You could try to prove why THAT conclusion is wrong (but only in relationship to the conversation itself) instead of generalizing what I am doing as somehow "stopping all scholarly discussions".

by ZoF 12y ago

angersock 12y ago

So, let's actually explore the idea a bit, and you'll see that it actually is not completely worth dismissing outright. One of the big problems with unwanted romantic advances is that they can come unexpectedly: you're there to do a deal, and the other person is trying to find a way of getting in your pants; you give out your number for business, other person calls you with non-business propositions. It's stressful and annoying, especially with the power imbalance one sees with investment. So, let's go ahead and start a firm (we'll tongue-in-cheek refer to it as SugarVC) whose deal to founders is straight up "We will fund you if you date us and/or return sexual favors". Let's assume all the contractual niceties are tied up clearly (hah) and in good faith (hah hah). What might we see from this? First, sexual harassment changes somewhat, because if you're dealing with SugarVC you know what you're getting into...you're not going to give out phone numbers, for example, that you can't shut off. Second, other investors know that a deal that didn't pan out or was passed over by SugarVC probably was because they didn't get a hookup out of it--not because of some inherent flaw in the business or numbers. In some ways, that's preferable to fixing the power imbalance because it could help limit reputational damage: failing to get funding at such a firm probably doesn't have the same network effects. Third, you probably see that the people getting funded are more attractive than usual, not selected for business viability but for being a better catch/trophy (deplorable, but bear with me). That being the case, we see that pretty people get more/safer funding guarantees. The possible effect of that is you end up with CEOs who are more presentable in public (simply because they're more attractive) and hence have a marketing/networking advantage--the actual business stuff being handled by a firm appointee or suggested hire, if they're serious about their investment as well. Arguably, this is actually not a terrible deal, if you believe that sales/marketing/networking beats out product. There are some other interesting ramifications of such a firm--so, let's not dismiss it out of hand.

tptacek 12y ago
I speak I think for many people on HN when I say that at least on this thread, in this context, in this discussion, in these circumstances, this idea should be dismissed out of hand. Let's stipulate you just want to have an interesting intellectual conversation. Can we have it some other time?
- StandardFuture 12y ago
  >Can we have it some other time? No, this 'intellectual conversation' should never happen. The people involved in any sort of conversation of this type(as I am sure many have happened in the past) will only dull their sympathy for people who do have to struggle/contend with this happening to them. It's morally disgusting and I could care less about your definition of 'morality'.
  - bmelton 12y ago
    Explaining my downvote: The idea that scholarly discussions should ever be disregarded as insensitive is, in my opinion, pure absurdity. I don't disagree that this isn't the right time for it (though I don't fault angersock for that), nor do I disagree that it might dull the sympathies of some - regardless, I completely reject that as a valid reason for avoiding an exchange of ideas driven by intellect.
    - StandardFuture 12y ago
      The exchanging of ideas is the definition of conversation itself, it is not particular to 'scholarly discussions'. That alone completely negates your point. However, I understand what you are trying to say. You are worried that the dismissal of conversation is a bad attitude towards progress. That is true. BUT that is not what is happening here. The premise was already set for what this conversation would be about. You should think of my rhetoric as a part of the conversation itself. Just because I weighed in as "going further accomplishes nothing", does not make that a a wrong conclusion. You could try to prove why THAT conclusion is wrong (but only in relationship to the conversation itself) instead of generalizing what I am doing as somehow "stopping all scholarly discussions".