Hacker News Reader

It would be awesome if we lived in a world where VCs, investors, and the tech industry in general just invested in people who deserve it. But we're so far from that world right now (just google vc investment in women-founded cos).

I think what JL is bringing up here is important because there is no room for naysayers with this exit. It's a monumental achievement, (for anyone!) but particularly a big F YOU to all the rampant misogny and boys-club culture that persists in tech among investors.

I don't speak for women, but I will say as a mostly-white dude, I have never thought "are there even CEOs or founders that look like me?" whereas I have, through the years, heard that many many times from women and POC.

What Tracy and her team have done is really fantastic. The fact that she's a woman is important only in that it begins the process of shutting up the old boys club, and (hopefully) a sign of things to come for those people who haven't traditionally been given the benefit of the doubt.

It's more than just shutting up the boy's club, and you alluded to it. I think it is important to shed light on the fact that she is a female founder because there are lots of young girls out there that need to see that someone like them, at least in one respect, can achieve something like this.

Young girls who need encouragement aren't already reading HN's comment section.

And a very welcome story after uBeam & Theranos.

jl is Jessica Livingston, the only female founder of YC. I, personally, see nothing wrong with her adding this detail.

It is insider info on YC alumni that I'm guessing isn't in the article and probably can't be found any other way. She is a reliable source.

Recommend you read this for some perspective on the issue. Indra Nooyi’s story opened my eyes a lot:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/03/indra-nooyi-shares-a-work-re...

> I feel I may be ignorant, but doesn't drawing attention to her gender like this only work to diminish her accomplishments?

How would it diminish her accomplishments? As a woman founder, the deck was stacked against her, so her accomplishing this makes it even more impressive.

> How would it diminish her accomplishments?

You're creating a separate category based on her gender, which is sexist in and of itself. It may have good intentions, but you're treating her different because of her sex. If we believe that genders are equal I'm not sure we should be drawing attention to it as a handicap. And if it is a handicap, which seems to be what you're saying, this only promulgates the status that men are more likely to succeed and I initially read it as discouraging.

I guess I just framed it differently than you. You see it as progress towards overcoming the adversity gap of being a woman in tech, whereas I naïvely think we should just treat women as equals. If calling attention to it is a necessary step in overcoming inequality then so be it.

I guess the issue is how do we change the playing field so it's no longer a handicap? I have no idea how to solve sexism and I am not trying to incite rage. I am asking questions because I am trying to have a conversation. For those who have responded civilly, thank you. I have some thinking to do.

Recognizing that the deck is stacked against her because of her gender isn't contributing to stacking the deck further against her. It's doing the opposite; it's pointing out an example that women can succeed in the industry.

Framing both the reality that the tech industry systematically discriminates against women, and pointing out that fact, as if they're two sides of the same coin makes no sense.

I think you're misunderstanding my perspective. Think of it this way. If I said "Tracy did an amazing job for a woman" would you not read it as disparaging? I am fully aware that was not the intention, but that is how I and I am guessing many other people initially read it (judging by how many people upvoted my comment). If our goal is to challenge people's perspectives (ie women are just as capable as succeeding in the tech industry as men), it's important to understand how they read things so we can communicate effectively.

I guess I think of it as fighting sexism with more sexism. We are making a special case to point out her gender, which is pointing out that we don't treat men and women equally in tech. That's sexism, even if it's meant to be good instead of bad. We are trying to solve sexism with more sexism. I guess it may be a necessary step to get to where we want to go, but honestly I'm not convinced it's the right way to get there. To me, simply treating women as equals rather than drawing attention to their gender is the way to go. And we are not treating them equally now, otherwise we wouldn't be mentioning gender.

But I could be wrong. Maybe it is a necessary step to get to where we want to go. I am not a woman and do not pretend to understand their perspective. I am currently trying to understand it more by reading the arguments for and against affirmative action, which I believe has many parallels to this discussion.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/08/...

Anyway, I appreciate your replies.

As a female founder, yes, absolutely.

This comment makes me so uncomfortable, I will probably close this tab and take a break from HN for a while.

I find it weird that we can't have a dialogue about this. Parent post wasn't inflammatory, and yet by its mere nature it makes you uncomfortable?

That is not to say anything of the truth of the post. I happen to disagree with it quite a bit. But people with opposing views (even in issues that seem very cut and dry eg we should celebrate women in tech) should be questioned, not shunned.

I fully agree with you. Welcome to the world of identity politics where every achievement must fill a narrative based on you gender//religion//sexual orientation.

The worst in all of this is that people pushing this are the ones that want to eradicate racism and sexism, which is a very brave goal but by attracting attention to all those external factors, They only create more racism and sexism.

Oh please. Succeeding despite adversity is worth celebrating. Just because that adversity is entrenched sexism and racism doesn't make it any less adverse.

You are right in a way though: there is going to be more visible sexism and racism from some sectors of society (e.g. Trump). This is to be expected as those fights move further towards victory. As Gandhi put it: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

Well done to Tracy Young for this step towards winning.

I fully agree that adversity is worth celebrating. I'm therefore 100% congratulating Tracy Young for this achievement. I'm congratulating her on the base that taking a company to this point is really hard.

I'm not congratulating her based on her sex or race. It is unfortunate that some sexist and/or racist behavior exist in tech but if you treat people differently and congratulate them based on their race//gender and not on their individuality, you are not doing anything differently than the racists//sexists.

> I feel I may be ignorant, but doesn't drawing attention to her gender like this only work to diminish her accomplishments?

Please watch the video. Every now and then she mentions her own gender as a very rare-to-find CEO, and clearly use it to her own advantage. I'm not judging whether its good or bad just merely stating the fact.