Comment by carrotsticker | Hacker News Reader

Comment by carrotsticker | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Super unpopular opinion incoming.

The guy was taken out of context and clearly said he was trying to explain why the number of female founders was less. His thoughts had to do with not many of them applying because they prefer to be mothers. Does not matter if thats true or not, what matters is less apply.

Also, the affirmative action think irks me. Statistically 99% of pitches dont get funded. If there is 19 male pitches for every female pitch, does that mean that the female should get funding because its less common?

I would feel disgusted as a woman to know I got funded just to have a quota filled and a box checked. When a woman pitches with a great idea, it should be seen as a success, not as a VC giving out charity. This stuff really takes away from the accomplishments of women and I hate it. The fact that you think that more women should have been funded just because they are women lets your bias shine through. Newsflash, Women and minorities can have, and usually do, just as shitty business ideas as CIS white men.

... Except that he's quoted as saying, "I think mothers have more important things to do [than be entrepreneurs]" which, while certainly a position that can be defended (though you won't see me doing so), is inarguably prejudiced against female founders with children: he is explicitly saying that mothers should not be entrepreneurs and implicitly saying that he would disfavor such a founder. He's very openly stating his prejudice against an entire class of people, to a member of that class.

I agree, but I think stepping outside the problem is necessary here. Not in defense of the VC, but for solving the problem.

The VC is projecting here. He has a family, his work requires being on nearly 24/7, and he cannot imagine having kids and his stressful career without his wife taking care of the domestic duties full-time. He's looking to fund entrepreneurs with similar commitments to their work.

The sexist assumptions I think the VC is making here: Married men have a wife like his, taking care of domestic duties so they have more time for work. Married women at this caliber do not have a stay-at-home spouse, they will need to spend more of their time away from work. There may be underlying concern about more children and that potential impact, too.

While biases significantly lower efficiency, it's a deeply rooted part of the human brain. Quick judgements made all the time based on years of interpreting patterns. I do think VC's like this lose out on great talent because of their biases. Unfortunately, the onus is on OP to allay the concerns of investors even in the face of an uncouth line of questioning.

While I liked OP's article and it is commendable to push for change for those who come later, there is also a practicality for the here and now. A greater attempt at diplomacy in the face of prejudice is a more productive way forward. Understanding WHY people are asking what they are asking is often more important than taking statements at face value. Answering their questions by drawing parallels within their own prejudices and biases goes a long way.

Personally I want to make the right money now so that I can be the father I want to be in the future. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that my future children will be the most important things in my life for several decades of my future.

I don't think that it is unreasonable to consider any parent as having more important things than startups to do.

I think that's a worthy goal. Speaking as a parent of a young child, I can say that he is more important to us than any startup or career. But, obviously, careers and startups don't go away and are pretty critical for the health and success of your children. My career requires a lot of travel and odd hours; my wife's startup requires massive time and effort investment (and before too long probably travel).

This is a hard balancing act, and requires significant time discipline and a very clear understanding of who is doing what when. We're also fortunate that we can afford in-home childcare, and have an absolutely wonderful nanny; most people don't have that luxury, and I'm well aware that it affords us certain options that make hard choices merely difficult.

Having a child is, for an entrepreneur (male or female), a hurdle that does demand action planning and confident communications with potential investors and partners. But I simply don't accept that it should ever be considered an insurmountable obstacle by investors.

Unfortunately, investments are one area where it's hard to say that "the free market will correct this," because it's impossible to quantify the value of companies never funded and products never built.

Equating "women" with "mothers" is the first prejudice (she asked about the former, not the latter):

"According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, in 2014, 47.6 percent of women between age 15 and 44 had never had children"

The way the conversation is quoted prevents us from seeing who introduces the term mother, I suspect it is harking back to previous comments.

What about the majority of them that did?

What point are you trying to make? All I said is that Women is a (significantly!) larger group than Mothers, so it's wrong to equate the two. The latter is a subset, and an explanation that only covers them, as valid as it may be, is insufficient to explain something about all women.

<Women is a (significantly!) larger group than Mothers>

Sure, because the former is a superset of the latter.

If you meant instead that "childless Women is a (significantly!) larger group than Mothers", even that stat defies meaningful comparison by including teenagers, clear down to 15-year-olds. A more relevant comparison for this workplace discussion would be constrained to a post-college-age group (say, ages 21-44).

Yeah, but while doing risk analysis it's definitely a thing worth considering.

Which wasn't what he was doing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_analysis_(business)

There's really no question that mothers, and females in general are statistically riskier investments in todays society.

That's a good point. I wonder if any research has been done quantifying this risk in respect to startups.

That said, startup investing is a real outlier in respect to regular investing. People specializing in it often are motivated by more than generating larger returns, as a return-oriented investor would surely find other fields to be more lucrative from a risk standpoint.

> The guy was taken out of context and clearly said he was trying to explain why the number of female founders was less. His thoughts had to do with not many of them applying because they prefer to be mothers.

Out-of-context quote from the VC:

> I think mother's [sic] have more important things to do

> Be mother's [sic]

> But I'm old school

That's not a man saying "I think mothers have different priorities," that's a man saying "I have different priorities for mothers."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com