Hacker News Reader

Comment by rokhayakebe | Hacker News Reader

We should care. We like to believe that all our differences do not make a difference, but fortunately and unfortunately they do.

For example if YC funds more startups with women you will not see the impact in the next 2 years. But 10 years from now those veterans would have encouraged several younger women to get into technical fields. Everyone will benefit from that.

I have had the chance to meet and work with a couple of female programmers, and although I am not a coder I was most certainly thrilled.

View on HN

Ah, but should YC make a concerted effort to fund startups with women because 'everyone will benefit eventually'? That's hardly fair.

YC may consider diversity in their portfolio a positive trait. They may also consider the PR value of female startup founders (which is worth considering...it is quite high). And, they may consider their reputation as a forward-thinking, out on the edge of progress, sort of investor. Maybe it's a trend, and maybe they want to be ahead of it.

I don't think one needs to look at what good could come of it in the future to consider investing in female-led startups a good idea.

What exactly is "forward thinking" about funding startups based on biological traits of the founders instead of their skills, aptitudes, and achievements?

Who said "instead of"?

Simultaneous optimization of multiple functions is impossible in the general case. But if there is one function being optimized, then there is some trade-off being made, so that--to some extent--one parameter is being selected for instead of another.

pg has said they fund as many great groups as they can find. So, if that's correct, then giving an additional point or two for being female founded, while assuming some base level of competence and dedication, is not "instead of" it is "in addition to".

Note that we're all speculating here. We don't actually really know anything about YC and female founded companies (except that the number of female founders amongst YC companies is strikingly low, but is representative of the applicant pool).

Because PG has finite time, there are two fundamental possibilities at work here:

(1) PG can find more "great groups" that he would want to fund than he has the time to work with. This, I expect, is almost certainly the case; PG then has to determine which amongst these groups of founders with whom to work. The question becomes, what function of the group of founders selected should be maximized. If you "give an additional point or two for being female founded" then the function you are optimizing is not just a matter of competence and dedication--either you aren't actually altering your behavior towards female founded groups, or there is some sufficiently pathological example of groups being very similar in which there is a female founded group that is slightly less competent/dedicated than a male only group competing over one remaining slot, and the slot is given to the female group. If no such example ever occurs in practice, then there is no point in giving female founded groups "an additional point or two" since it never altered the decision.

(2) PG has more time available than "great groups" with whom to work. In this case, taking on additional groups simply because they are female-founded, in addition to being discriminatory, seems likely to be a net negative, assuming the original meaning to the term "great groups" was set to be at whatever level is necessary to have positive expected outcome.

Looking at this dichotomy another way, we can think of PG's time as a market resource. In the first case, it is scarce, and should sell to the highest bidders (those with highest expected value, measured as utility for PG). In the second case, it is abundant, and every consumer gets what they need/want. In reality, it is probably either directly scarce (falling into the first category), or made scarce by the presence of other high utility alternatives (e.g., spending time with his family).

In summary, there is no "in addition to" as far as criteria with respect to which you want to maximize. There can only be "instead of", or a (possibly zero) conversion factor.

As a side note, in another comment on this page (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=591537) PG noted that they don't ask the gender of founders when considering funding.

OK. So, what's actually far more interesting to me is how much attention my idle ramblings about why a company like YC might (not that they do) encourage or even prefer female founders have gotten. I didn't realize reverse discrimination was such a sensitive area amongst the technical elite, particularly since males have had a dramatic lead for as long as technology has existed (a more pronounced lead than in pretty much any other field in modern first world economies).

Part of what makes this sort of thing a touchy subject for so many people is that, in the event of this sort of process being practiced (1) men who aren't selected feel angry about the nature of the process instead of feeling that they need to improve themselves to improve their chances for the next round, and (2) women who are selected are sometimes (often?) demeaned by men as needing additional assistance in order to make the cut (this is contrary to a common view I have encountered; that this sort of thing is fundamentally victimless). People subject to either of these circumstances (or close to such a person) are likely to have strong feelings on this subject.

As to why I personally supplied such a detailed response; it's mostly an opportunity to procrastinate by trying to change some minds regarding an issue important to me instead of working on something I've been avoiding.

We're all more alike than we are different around here, aren't we? I've been working on, and not enjoying, some PHP code all weekend long. Procrastination is the mother of silly arguments on the Internets, it seems.

Well, quite frankly, I'm glad YC look at other criteria. Positive discrimination is a terrible thing. Imagine being a woman funded by an investor making an effort to focus on female-led startups. The world knows you were only funded because of your chromosomes. Self-esteem is a big enough problem as it is!

I think a venture firm that privileges woman ran startups with a focus on women-markets would be great. After all who does most of the spending in a household? Remember that web apps represents only a tiny tiny fraction of consumers' expenditures.

If we're playing the household card, then there are plenty of women-led kitchen table startups that will never see, nor need, venture funding. There are also plenty of women-led startups that don't focus on female markets, and male-led startups that do, inadvertently or otherwise (time for a quote about how most car purchases are down to the woman in the household).

I am not saying they should. I am saying if it happens.

It's interesting—startups are probably a better opportunity for female hackers because, in general, markets are less sexist than hiring managers.

YC should fund startups that have a chance to succeed. If women entrepreneurs come in with unique perspectives to target the under-served community of women on the intertubes, then great. Otherwise, it is a waste of money that doesn't benefit YC which hurts other startups and ultimately the startup community as a whole.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com