7 ms·

> What has happened instead is that the tone seemed to suggest that it is easy for white men* to succeed. Having read the article I can say I did not get that

> What has happened instead is that the tone seemed to suggest that it is easy for white men* to succeed. Having read the article I can say I did not get that impression at all. The article argues it's easier for men to be funded than women and that there are implicit biases at work in the VC-funding-system that unfairly disadvantage women. This sounds perfectly reasonable to me; it's a common and valid criticism made by feminists all the time.

mreiland 11y ago
Here's the relevant quote from the article. > I knew the founders of many other companies pretty closely – their backgrounds, their revenue, their valuations, how much they raised. Sure, it’s comparing apples and oranges, but one company (with a 6’ tall, attractive white, male CEO) that was pre-product and just a few LOIs raised over a million with 3x the valuation. A smaller B2B company that had 10% of our revenue raised the same amount as us, at twice the valuation. Another B2C company, with a quarter of our revenue and much stronger, well-funded competitors, raised 3x what we raised, at twice the valuation. The main difference? They were all run by all male founders. I don't believe any reasonable person is going to read that and walk away believing the author wasn't implying that white men get funded easier than women.
- matt_morgan 11y ago
  The question is for what reason. She's making an argument that was the only difference. With support & evidence.
- ido 11y ago
  Easier, not easy.
  - mreiland 11y ago
    someone needs to read up on their IFF logic tables.
- kaitai 11y ago
  That's right -- the article is saying that white guys (especially tall and handsome ones -- remember that short guys oh wait you already know) have less difficulty than many other people in the funding game. But in this discussion, the claim a few posts above was that the article says that white guys have it easy. Different. It's like claiming A greater than B means A very large, if we're talking about, say, real numbers. But just because a .5 percent chance is bigger than a .2 percent chance doesn't imply that either of these numbers is very large. In particular, it's useful to play with numbers because it reminds you that a very small difference in funding rates at the beginning may compound, leading to big differences later. If a few important investors get distracted by the idea of dating you or don't take you seriously because of small biases, that may have a substantial long-term impact.
  - josephmx 11y ago
    The tone doesn't seem to reflect 0.2 -> 0.5, more like 0.1 -> "sure thing, impossible not to get funded"
    - EmanueleAina 11y ago
      I guess not everybody perceived the tone in the same way. It seemed much more neutral to me.
  - mreiland 11y ago
    The term 'easy' is also relative, stop trying to be pedantic.
hiddenpewpew 11y ago
It's easier for white men* to get funding than white women*. http://fortune.com/2015/05/06/silicon-valley-asians-report/ http://fortune.com/2015/05/06/silicon-valley-asians-report/ A vast majority of men are still discriminated more than white women in Silicon Valley. So you need to specify which group of men, and which group of women. Since right now, White men > White Women > Hispanic Men > Asian Men > Black Men > Asian Women > Black Women > Hispanic Women Do you not see that this isn't just a gender problem? This is a racial and cultural problem. White women are one of the least discriminated groups at large in the grand scheme of things. Sure, discrimination and bias are wrong. But guess what, the world doesn't work in ideals. Learn how the system is run, and do the best you can at the moment given your advantages and disadvantages. If your a white women, look for other women for mentorship and/or funding. She's gone through it before, she understands the nuances of trying to be successful, and the social prowess needed to get there. You can use your gender to your advantage, or it can be to your detriment. If your a non-white male, put your face to the grindstone because you have to work that much harder to get to where you want to be. There is no if and or buts, this is how it is. You can try and create social change to the detriment of your career, you can point it out all you want but this is it. This is the environment you are working in at this moment of time. Either embrace the hardship, or become an activist to create change.

mreiland 11y ago

Here's the relevant quote from the article. > I knew the founders of many other companies pretty closely – their backgrounds, their revenue, their valuations, how much they raised. Sure, it’s comparing apples and oranges, but one company (with a 6’ tall, attractive white, male CEO) that was pre-product and just a few LOIs raised over a million with 3x the valuation. A smaller B2B company that had 10% of our revenue raised the same amount as us, at twice the valuation. Another B2C company, with a quarter of our revenue and much stronger, well-funded competitors, raised 3x what we raised, at twice the valuation. The main difference? They were all run by all male founders. I don't believe any reasonable person is going to read that and walk away believing the author wasn't implying that white men get funded easier than women.

matt_morgan 11y ago
The question is for what reason. She's making an argument that was the only difference. With support & evidence.
ido 11y ago
Easier, not easy.
- mreiland 11y ago
  someone needs to read up on their IFF logic tables.
kaitai 11y ago
That's right -- the article is saying that white guys (especially tall and handsome ones -- remember that short guys oh wait you already know) have less difficulty than many other people in the funding game. But in this discussion, the claim a few posts above was that the article says that white guys have it easy. Different. It's like claiming A greater than B means A very large, if we're talking about, say, real numbers. But just because a .5 percent chance is bigger than a .2 percent chance doesn't imply that either of these numbers is very large. In particular, it's useful to play with numbers because it reminds you that a very small difference in funding rates at the beginning may compound, leading to big differences later. If a few important investors get distracted by the idea of dating you or don't take you seriously because of small biases, that may have a substantial long-term impact.
- josephmx 11y ago
  The tone doesn't seem to reflect 0.2 -> 0.5, more like 0.1 -> "sure thing, impossible not to get funded"
  - EmanueleAina 11y ago
    I guess not everybody perceived the tone in the same way. It seemed much more neutral to me.
- mreiland 11y ago
  The term 'easy' is also relative, stop trying to be pedantic.

hiddenpewpew 11y ago

It's easier for white men* to get funding than white women*. http://fortune.com/2015/05/06/silicon-valley-asians-report/ http://fortune.com/2015/05/06/silicon-valley-asians-report/ A vast majority of men are still discriminated more than white women in Silicon Valley. So you need to specify which group of men, and which group of women. Since right now, White men > White Women > Hispanic Men > Asian Men > Black Men > Asian Women > Black Women > Hispanic Women Do you not see that this isn't just a gender problem? This is a racial and cultural problem. White women are one of the least discriminated groups at large in the grand scheme of things. Sure, discrimination and bias are wrong. But guess what, the world doesn't work in ideals. Learn how the system is run, and do the best you can at the moment given your advantages and disadvantages. If your a white women, look for other women for mentorship and/or funding. She's gone through it before, she understands the nuances of trying to be successful, and the social prowess needed to get there. You can use your gender to your advantage, or it can be to your detriment. If your a non-white male, put your face to the grindstone because you have to work that much harder to get to where you want to be. There is no if and or buts, this is how it is. You can try and create social change to the detriment of your career, you can point it out all you want but this is it. This is the environment you are working in at this moment of time. Either embrace the hardship, or become an activist to create change.