Comment by DiabloD3 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by DiabloD3 | Hacker News Reader

What I don't get about this is why she just doesn't name names. I'm a white attractive male, however, I don't want to ever accept investments from investors that do not share the same values as I do, such as women are a vast untapped skilled workforce and treating them as anything less simply isn't profitable, and pretty ignorant.

I mean, hell, sure, lets say for the sake of argument, "women belong in the kitchen, pregnant, and barefoot" (the single most classically sexist thing I can think of at 6:30 in the morning), women raise our children, both boys and girls: if you truly believe this, why didn't you marry a woman with multiple PhDs and a high IQ, so a much more intelligent forward-thinking educated woman is raising your children, thus giving them a better chance in life and thus spreading your genetic legacy more favorably (the driving force behind 99% of human culture and society)?

Seriously, sexism just doesn't logically make sense. If you're sexist, and a CEO or a major investor, please drop out of the game and let someone more efficient than you take your place.

Edit: I don't care if you downvote me, sexism is still wrong and needs to be called out as much as possible so we can exile people who are abusing their power to promote sexism.

Naming names are generally a bad idea, because you don't know if the person really was a sexiest sleazeball or the person making the accusation is just angry that that person just didn't want to invest.

I agree with you that it doesn't make sense to exclude someone for being a woman (or an Eskimo, handicapped, from Belgium or pretty much any other reason), if that person has the qualification you're looking for. In theory the companies that discriminate should suffer from a lack of talent or have to pay more for their workers, because they're recruiting from a smaller pool. I don't know if we want to wait for them to bleed to death, but eventually they will go away.

You're absolutely right that sexism doesn't make logical sense, I'm completely baffled when I hear stories about someone being rejected for being a woman. The sad part is that many of the women who step forward behave like self-entitled spoiled brats, so it becomes hard to tell if they where reject due to gender or personality.

> In theory the companies that discriminate should suffer from a lack of talent or have to pay more for their workers, because they're recruiting from a smaller pool.

Part of the problem is that if there is a systematic bias in place, then they won't suffer relative to their competitors, who are mostly also biased in the same way.

> The sad part is that many of the women who step forward behave like self-entitled spoiled brats, so it becomes hard to tell if they where reject due to gender or personality.

If more money was actually being put into female-founded companies, I'd be more inclined to believe that it is the latter. But it's not like the startup world is filled with success stories of quiet female founders while the loud ones all end up as bitter bloggers.

I'd agree, but its so very, very common to mansplain womens' complaints as trivial ("self-entitled spoiled brats") while men in the same situation would have their response interpreted with some kind of respect.

>but its so very, very common to mansplain womens' complaints as trivial

I'm still undecided as to how I feel about that logic, it's something that you hear rather often. It's also, to some extend, claiming that I don't understand the problem, because I'm a man. That's really a bad starting point for getting male involvement in womens issues.

Mostly I try to avoid getting into arguments about sexism in IT. It's hasn't been productive in the past and I often feel attacked for being male. I get the impression that women, and some men, want me/us to take action while being extremely vague about what those actions might be. For now I've decide that I don't care about women in IT. I won't discriminate, I won't create a hostile work environment, but I won't be doing anything to actively help either.

I am with you on that. Its hard to say anything without criticism.

I believe the problem is, its a cultural difference. Some women have a different setpoint when complaining, which men are uncomfortable with. That discomfort is louder than the message.

Now, we could either ask women to learn to argue like a man. We could ignore them and hope they go away. We could try to speak for women, (mis)translating their message. Or we could get over it, and just address the message.

I'm with you, brother. I'm sick of being attacked because of my gender when im not a part of the problem, and than shamed because I'm not actively helping women.

oh well.

cheers, mate.

You don't "name names" because as the OP already stated: there's lots of back channeling going on. Investors don't want someone who is going to "tattle" and share experiences (good or bad). Besides: two wrongs don't make a right. Someone in the situation needs to display some professionalism.

In regards to the other issues presented: I have to agree that the dating scene / app market is overly saturated. I'm positive that the fact the CEO and CTO were attractive white females did not assist their situation when they had to be overly outgoing to try and snag a few minutes of time with investors. It doesn't matter if you're a man or a woman when it comes to pitching: you NEED to be social and aggressive. As a result, men they were pitching to probably thought that they WERE being flirtatious. There's no way to know if the OP was completely professional the whole time or not (we're getting one side of the story); however it's likely that when talking about dating apps, being social, and pitching investors that there could be some confusion about where the line is for flirting compared to trying to get attention for your business.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com