5 ms·

A piece titled "What We Learned From 40 YC Founders" would probably be equivalent to "What We Learned From 40 Male YC Founders." If YC wants to cater to women

by debacle 12y ago

A piece titled "What We Learned From 40 YC Founders" would probably be equivalent to "What We Learned From 40 Male YC Founders." If YC wants to cater to women and see that percentage of their applicants grow, they need to analyze their current stock.

corndoge 12y ago
That's /exactly/ the problem. Why should we be catering to women? Why are they so special? Why can't we just be gender-neutral and write some pieces about males for once?
- CapitalistCartr 12y ago
  For once??? Most of the articles written ARE about males. Unless it specifies, as this one does, the default is males. "Why should we be catering to women?" Why are we currently so heavily catering to men?
  - tomp 12y ago
    Really, most articles are about people and we're catering to people.
  - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
    >Most of the articles written ARE about males. // Could you copy a few links here on articles about YC founders that particularly focus on their being male, what it is about the masculinity that is relevant, etc., rather than just mentioning them as people? I'm not sure I've ever read such an article. I'm fascinated to see what they discuss? The choice between fatherhood and career, the preconceptions to behave in a particular fashion, the unfair dresscodes and lack of paternity rights? Because an article is about people, and those people happen to have a joint characteristic, that doesn't mean that the article is about that characteristic of those people. To recapitulate, if I right an article about people who inspired me growing up and it mentions Ronald Reagan and Michael Gorbachev that doesn't mean the article is about "light skinned males" any more than if it were about Margaret Thatcher and Germaine Greer it would be about "light skinned females". FWIW the OP doesn't really touch on being about being a female founder except in one para: >"We got an interesting variety of responses when we asked the women whether being a female was advantageous or disadvantageous in their roles as founders." And in that the response appears to have been "it didn't make any difference". Well if being a male and female founder is practically the same it does rather demand that we ask the question, so why are YC focussing on the sex of these particular founders then, what's it got to do with anything. There is this bit of unexplained sexism: >"And as YC has grown, so has the number of female partners. Now there are four of us and we are not tokens, or a female minority in a male-dominated firm. At the risk of offending my male colleagues, who will nevertheless understand what I mean, some would claim it's closer to the truth to say that that we run the place." In what way is it fine to pick out that "we run the place" and specifically note that's related to being a particular sex? How is that cool. Maybe those people do run the place, but is that really because they're a particular sex rather than because that's the role they were hired for, or fell into, within the firm? Why is YC so keen to maintain an actively demarcated line between males and females rather than just say Alex here is office manager, rather than noting first which sex Alex is. Baffles me how this is presented as progressively non-sexist.
    - spcoll 12y ago
      YC and PG have a history of sexism and actively discriminating against women (see http://www.thewire.com/technology/2013/12/paul-graham-revives-sexism-tech-talk/356541/ http://www.thewire.com/technology/2013/12/paul-graham-revive...). For this reason, yes, it is important to mention that Alex is a woman, so as to make potential female women less scared of approaching YC. In a perfect world it wouldn't be necessary, but because the climate in the industry is one of harassment against every woman, it is necessary to point out successful examples of females in tech and in YC.
    - Double_Cast 12y ago
      > And in that the response appears to have been "it didn't make any difference". > Well if being a male and female founder is practically the same it does rather demand that we ask the question, so why are YC focussing on the sex of these particular founders then, what's it got to do with anything. I think the idea was that said females didn't find founding a company any more difficult, given they had already chosen the founder path. This is because once you go down that path, the most significant factor is drive. So Jessica "not really touching on being a female founder" may have been intended to convey a welcoming sense of gender-equality by not actually focusing about gender (like you say it shouldn't be). But on the other hand, we can't ignore the up-stream barrier-to-entry that must exist for the demographics to look so skewed. > we run the place Yeah, I agree. That particular line (in an otherwise fine article) may have been written with good intention. But it also felt pretty jarring. Reading "we (us women) run the place" gives me vibes that sexism is something to be inverted rather than neutralized. I think the article might have been better received had Jessica said "The 4 of us, who happen to be women, play key roles" or "It's nice to see a female majority at the top for a change".
- debacle 12y ago
  On the one hand, because women sort of run the narrative these days. On the other hand, YCombinator is a private startup incubator and can do whatever the hell it wants. If they want to cater specifically to lesbian Alaskan Muslims, it is their prerogative to do so.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    There's an 8:2 gender gap in software development and it's women "running the narrative"?
    - debacle 12y ago
      It's all anyone seems to write about these days, which I assume is because it garners the clicks. I don't mean that women are actually running things, but rather that the topic of women is pretty much a constant theme in startup journalism these days, for better or worse. What's Matasano's policy on hiring lesbian Alaskan Muslims?
      - tptacek 12y ago
        I have no idea what that line means, but I am for some reason now thoroughly creeped out.
    - reitanqild 12y ago
      No I think he means in the wider society. And I don't necessarily agree. That said a lot of us has grown up in places were women were (and are) given advantages at every point from kindergarden until they finish school. When I was younger it used to annoy me. Not so much anymore but it might explain his views. Edit: enlighten me, what did I do to deserve downvotes so I can avoid doing it again?
      - lkbm 12y ago
        I didn't downvote you, but you allude to vague advantages that women get over men, ignoring the fact that, well, all evidence is that we (men) are the privileged class. Studies have shown that, as a man, I'm less likely to be interrupted in meetings, more likely to have my opinion listened to, will likely have a higher salary, and will less likely be driven out by an oppressive environment. White male Christians think they're the most oppressed group. Studies typically find otherwise, though. If you want to argue that women have the advantage, you're going to need to provide some good evidence. Extraordinary claims, y'know?
- Frozenlock 12y ago
  It's a technique by people not wanting women in the field. Make sure everyone notice their gender first; make it all about their sex rather than their skills. Make sure they never EVER forget they are a special bunch and never treat them like equals. Make 'special' categories for them.
  - _almosnow 12y ago
    This, this, this, all the way this. The first step on treating someone equal is actually accepting it as equal; if it is equal then, why would you need to highlight a difference? Most of the whiteknighting I see here comes from a very distorted (if not pathological) portrait of "how should a person that does not discriminate behave". Sadly, but true, sometimes the people that believe they are being the most helpful actually aggravate the problem even more. I remember an interview to a female programmer not long ago where the interviewer started asking bullshit questions like in "is it hard to be a woman in a world full of man". The girl became really pissed off (of course) and eventually told the guy to stop asking things around that topic, she was there because she was a skilled programmer which is a skill irrelevant to the fact of someone being male/female black/white muslim/catholic or whatever. But obviously those stories are not attractive for media/PR, the best selling show is instead called "I'm a <relative minority> and can STILL do the same stuff as if <status quo> would've done it!". A shame to see YC falling for the same fad.
  - lkbm 12y ago
    Maybe if we pretend sexism doesn't exist it will go away? We disadvantage women (and gender and racial minorities) without intending to and without being aware of it. When we just say "let's treat people equally and all will be solved" we ignore the fact that we don't know HOW to treat people equally. We have countless ingrained assumptions about men v. women that cause unconscious changes in how we treat them from birth. "Let's just stop intentionally being sexist/racist/homophobic and everything will be hunky-dory" flies right in the face of all the science out there on human behavior, on every level, neurology up to sociology.
    - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
- BinaryIdiot 12y ago
  You're right in a way in that it should be gender neutral. But the problem is there is far more encouragement towards men being entrepreneurs (especially in the technology space) while women typically get discouraged to do things outside of the stereotypical "female role". A mechanism to help correct this is to cater more content for women versus men. It won't correct it, it's not perfect and I think we'd all rather not care about gender, race, etc but the reality of today is if you're not a white male you're discouraged in many environments from attempting the same thing.
  - belorn 12y ago
    The problem with that line of thinking is the singular focus on stereotypical male profession, while ignoring gender distribution in highly sought after female professions. It might come as a surprise, but most of the top 10 most sought after professions (based on the applications for university level classes) are female dominated. Men get equally discouraged to do those things outside of the stereotypical "male professions", and there is no mechanism to help correct this. The idea to create male only conferences, universities or network groups for psychologists and veterinaries is seen as a bad joke that no one would ever take seriously, yet those professions has similar or significant worse gender ratios than that for entrepreneurs or technology professionals. I suspect that we would see much less critique of gender equality mechanisms if those mechanisms were equally used in handling both male and female stereotypes. The result otherwise seems only to reinforce the gender stereotype of women as victims, and ignoring the underlying problem of gender stereotypes discouraged people from picking their own destiny.
    - BinaryIdiot 12y ago
      You're right and my comment was only directed to the topic at hand which is a stereotypical male profession. Naturally other professions may need a different solution to their problem. Regardless I don't think this is something that is going to be resolved anytime soon.
    - Anechoic 12y ago
      The idea to create male only conferences, universities or network groups for psychologists and veterinaries is seen as a bad joke that no one would ever take seriously, That is absolutely false. Yes, there are a number of professions dominated by females (the ones you mention as well as school teachers and nursing) and there are numerous examples of support groups, outreach groups, and scholarship programs that are trying to attract males students and applicants. You are looking for a double standard where none exist.
- vectorpush 12y ago
  Why do you care? Men don't need any champions in tech, we're doing quite well with the status-quo. Some organizations want to encourage a bit of diversity in their industry, why does that bother you?

by debacle 12y ago

corndoge 12y ago

That's /exactly/ the problem. Why should we be catering to women? Why are they so special? Why can't we just be gender-neutral and write some pieces about males for once?

CapitalistCartr 12y ago
For once??? Most of the articles written ARE about males. Unless it specifies, as this one does, the default is males. "Why should we be catering to women?" Why are we currently so heavily catering to men?
- tomp 12y ago
  Really, most articles are about people and we're catering to people.
- pbhjpbhj 12y ago
  >Most of the articles written ARE about males. // Could you copy a few links here on articles about YC founders that particularly focus on their being male, what it is about the masculinity that is relevant, etc., rather than just mentioning them as people? I'm not sure I've ever read such an article. I'm fascinated to see what they discuss? The choice between fatherhood and career, the preconceptions to behave in a particular fashion, the unfair dresscodes and lack of paternity rights? Because an article is about people, and those people happen to have a joint characteristic, that doesn't mean that the article is about that characteristic of those people. To recapitulate, if I right an article about people who inspired me growing up and it mentions Ronald Reagan and Michael Gorbachev that doesn't mean the article is about "light skinned males" any more than if it were about Margaret Thatcher and Germaine Greer it would be about "light skinned females". FWIW the OP doesn't really touch on being about being a female founder except in one para: >"We got an interesting variety of responses when we asked the women whether being a female was advantageous or disadvantageous in their roles as founders." And in that the response appears to have been "it didn't make any difference". Well if being a male and female founder is practically the same it does rather demand that we ask the question, so why are YC focussing on the sex of these particular founders then, what's it got to do with anything. There is this bit of unexplained sexism: >"And as YC has grown, so has the number of female partners. Now there are four of us and we are not tokens, or a female minority in a male-dominated firm. At the risk of offending my male colleagues, who will nevertheless understand what I mean, some would claim it's closer to the truth to say that that we run the place." In what way is it fine to pick out that "we run the place" and specifically note that's related to being a particular sex? How is that cool. Maybe those people do run the place, but is that really because they're a particular sex rather than because that's the role they were hired for, or fell into, within the firm? Why is YC so keen to maintain an actively demarcated line between males and females rather than just say Alex here is office manager, rather than noting first which sex Alex is. Baffles me how this is presented as progressively non-sexist.
  - spcoll 12y ago
    YC and PG have a history of sexism and actively discriminating against women (see http://www.thewire.com/technology/2013/12/paul-graham-revives-sexism-tech-talk/356541/ http://www.thewire.com/technology/2013/12/paul-graham-revive...). For this reason, yes, it is important to mention that Alex is a woman, so as to make potential female women less scared of approaching YC. In a perfect world it wouldn't be necessary, but because the climate in the industry is one of harassment against every woman, it is necessary to point out successful examples of females in tech and in YC.
  - Double_Cast 12y ago
    > And in that the response appears to have been "it didn't make any difference". > Well if being a male and female founder is practically the same it does rather demand that we ask the question, so why are YC focussing on the sex of these particular founders then, what's it got to do with anything. I think the idea was that said females didn't find founding a company any more difficult, given they had already chosen the founder path. This is because once you go down that path, the most significant factor is drive. So Jessica "not really touching on being a female founder" may have been intended to convey a welcoming sense of gender-equality by not actually focusing about gender (like you say it shouldn't be). But on the other hand, we can't ignore the up-stream barrier-to-entry that must exist for the demographics to look so skewed. > we run the place Yeah, I agree. That particular line (in an otherwise fine article) may have been written with good intention. But it also felt pretty jarring. Reading "we (us women) run the place" gives me vibes that sexism is something to be inverted rather than neutralized. I think the article might have been better received had Jessica said "The 4 of us, who happen to be women, play key roles" or "It's nice to see a female majority at the top for a change".
debacle 12y ago
On the one hand, because women sort of run the narrative these days. On the other hand, YCombinator is a private startup incubator and can do whatever the hell it wants. If they want to cater specifically to lesbian Alaskan Muslims, it is their prerogative to do so.
- tptacek 12y ago
  There's an 8:2 gender gap in software development and it's women "running the narrative"?
  - debacle 12y ago
    It's all anyone seems to write about these days, which I assume is because it garners the clicks. I don't mean that women are actually running things, but rather that the topic of women is pretty much a constant theme in startup journalism these days, for better or worse. What's Matasano's policy on hiring lesbian Alaskan Muslims?
    - tptacek 12y ago
      I have no idea what that line means, but I am for some reason now thoroughly creeped out.
  - reitanqild 12y ago
    No I think he means in the wider society. And I don't necessarily agree. That said a lot of us has grown up in places were women were (and are) given advantages at every point from kindergarden until they finish school. When I was younger it used to annoy me. Not so much anymore but it might explain his views. Edit: enlighten me, what did I do to deserve downvotes so I can avoid doing it again?
    - lkbm 12y ago
      I didn't downvote you, but you allude to vague advantages that women get over men, ignoring the fact that, well, all evidence is that we (men) are the privileged class. Studies have shown that, as a man, I'm less likely to be interrupted in meetings, more likely to have my opinion listened to, will likely have a higher salary, and will less likely be driven out by an oppressive environment. White male Christians think they're the most oppressed group. Studies typically find otherwise, though. If you want to argue that women have the advantage, you're going to need to provide some good evidence. Extraordinary claims, y'know?
Frozenlock 12y ago
It's a technique by people not wanting women in the field. Make sure everyone notice their gender first; make it all about their sex rather than their skills. Make sure they never EVER forget they are a special bunch and never treat them like equals. Make 'special' categories for them.
- _almosnow 12y ago
  This, this, this, all the way this. The first step on treating someone equal is actually accepting it as equal; if it is equal then, why would you need to highlight a difference? Most of the whiteknighting I see here comes from a very distorted (if not pathological) portrait of "how should a person that does not discriminate behave". Sadly, but true, sometimes the people that believe they are being the most helpful actually aggravate the problem even more. I remember an interview to a female programmer not long ago where the interviewer started asking bullshit questions like in "is it hard to be a woman in a world full of man". The girl became really pissed off (of course) and eventually told the guy to stop asking things around that topic, she was there because she was a skilled programmer which is a skill irrelevant to the fact of someone being male/female black/white muslim/catholic or whatever. But obviously those stories are not attractive for media/PR, the best selling show is instead called "I'm a <relative minority> and can STILL do the same stuff as if <status quo> would've done it!". A shame to see YC falling for the same fad.
- lkbm 12y ago
  Maybe if we pretend sexism doesn't exist it will go away? We disadvantage women (and gender and racial minorities) without intending to and without being aware of it. When we just say "let's treat people equally and all will be solved" we ignore the fact that we don't know HOW to treat people equally. We have countless ingrained assumptions about men v. women that cause unconscious changes in how we treat them from birth. "Let's just stop intentionally being sexist/racist/homophobic and everything will be hunky-dory" flies right in the face of all the science out there on human behavior, on every level, neurology up to sociology.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
BinaryIdiot 12y ago
You're right in a way in that it should be gender neutral. But the problem is there is far more encouragement towards men being entrepreneurs (especially in the technology space) while women typically get discouraged to do things outside of the stereotypical "female role". A mechanism to help correct this is to cater more content for women versus men. It won't correct it, it's not perfect and I think we'd all rather not care about gender, race, etc but the reality of today is if you're not a white male you're discouraged in many environments from attempting the same thing.
- belorn 12y ago
  The problem with that line of thinking is the singular focus on stereotypical male profession, while ignoring gender distribution in highly sought after female professions. It might come as a surprise, but most of the top 10 most sought after professions (based on the applications for university level classes) are female dominated. Men get equally discouraged to do those things outside of the stereotypical "male professions", and there is no mechanism to help correct this. The idea to create male only conferences, universities or network groups for psychologists and veterinaries is seen as a bad joke that no one would ever take seriously, yet those professions has similar or significant worse gender ratios than that for entrepreneurs or technology professionals. I suspect that we would see much less critique of gender equality mechanisms if those mechanisms were equally used in handling both male and female stereotypes. The result otherwise seems only to reinforce the gender stereotype of women as victims, and ignoring the underlying problem of gender stereotypes discouraged people from picking their own destiny.
  - BinaryIdiot 12y ago
    You're right and my comment was only directed to the topic at hand which is a stereotypical male profession. Naturally other professions may need a different solution to their problem. Regardless I don't think this is something that is going to be resolved anytime soon.
  - Anechoic 12y ago
    The idea to create male only conferences, universities or network groups for psychologists and veterinaries is seen as a bad joke that no one would ever take seriously, That is absolutely false. Yes, there are a number of professions dominated by females (the ones you mention as well as school teachers and nursing) and there are numerous examples of support groups, outreach groups, and scholarship programs that are trying to attract males students and applicants. You are looking for a double standard where none exist.
vectorpush 12y ago
Why do you care? Men don't need any champions in tech, we're doing quite well with the status-quo. Some organizations want to encourage a bit of diversity in their industry, why does that bother you?