What has happened instead is that the tone seemed to suggest that it is easy for white men* to succeed. This is in a way dismissing the efforts of countless white nerds who have spent their entire youth fiddling with their computer projects. The internet is full of obscure projects that exist purely for the love of hacking. The author misses out the correlation between this and the relatively larger number of successful white men in the industry.
Discrimination is real. But we shouldn't rush to attribute success to being white and male, unless there is a study which tells us: (no of hours white men have spent/successful white men) vs (no of hours X group has spent/successful X group people)
To me, it seems that the way to fix it is to get kids to start programming early irrespective of gender and color.
* I am male, but not white.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
Some of those should not be invited back to YC. Isn't that one of the things YC does, bring in quality investors? What about the drunk at demo day? These are examples of the investors not taking the founders and what they're doing seriously. Has YC passed its peak?
It's sleazy to invite somebody hoping to date them but giving the impression that you want to invest in them. But the guy mentioned explicitly stated "it's a personal invitation", meaning it would be a date. What is so horrible about that? Can women not even say "no thanks" by email anymore, is that too much of an ordeal (or, if that is too hard, just ignore an email - too hard?)?
Besides, let's be honest - even if it was a private invitation, it was an even by some VC, so presumably lots of VCs would have been present. I'd be very surprised if women would not also routinely get the advantage of being introduced to VCs because they are women, which men don't get. It's dumb to not take advantage of that because of some weird puritan moral that attractiveness is not supposed to exist. She mentions herself that "attractive" male CEOs seem to get more funding.
Edit: reply to comments below - first, do you really think a guy having sex with an investor just to get investment would not be called some unfavorable things behind his back?
And being invited to a party with VC is a net positive option. Ignoring it would merely put her back to the level of men, not below that level. Feeling pressure to go there - really? As I said, it is strictly a positive option, ignore it and you can still do all the things men do to meet investors. And maybe that guy merely thought she would be interested in meeting VCs and proposed that as a date because of that. What's wrong with trying to cater to the interests of your date?
>And being invited to a party with VC is a net positive option. Ignoring it would merely put her back to the level of men, not below that level. Feeling pressure to go there - really?
Let's say she that she theoretically agrees to his proposition and goes to the event even though she doesn't like the guy much. She has a very productive and enjoyable time speaking with investors. Her date mentions that his VC will be holding future events which he would like to bring her to as his date. He also mentions that he would like to have sex with her. What will she do? If she declines she might not be invited to these future events and may miss out on funding opportunities.
This type of scenario is one reason why I said that the arrangement was unethical. Whether intentional or not, it sets up the basis for a very unequal relationship.
You could also ask who is the person being cheated - the guy getting sex only for his money, or the woman getting money only for sex.
Also, surely people never partner up because it suits their life plans. It's all just romantic love in the real world. You might walk down the street and fall in love with a hobo - nothing you can do about the will of the heart.
And supposing wealthy men would try to take advantage of their wealth (promising money for sex and then not delivering), why wouldn't it be fair game for woman to take advantage of their attractiveness (promising sex for money and then not delivering)?
You also seem to assume that men are incapable of being genuinely interested in a woman. What if the guy really was interested in the woman and merely wants a date to get to know her better?
And no, I'm not assuming that men are incapable of being genuinely interested in a woman. To the contrary, I have no reason to think otherwise. It's just that a funding meeting is not really the appropriate venue to express such interest, just like it's better to wait until one has reached the toilet before expelling fluids in excess.
Even between men I think "attraction" or getting along well would play a role in deciding to fund somebody. Just because somebody is interested in a woman doesn't imply they just want her body.
What if it's attractive to an investor if a woman is also moving in the same world as she is. So that maybe they have something to talk about at the dinner table?
Who would it be OK for an investor to date?
> Who would it be OK for an investor to date?
Anyone who's not asking them an investment, which I guess still leaves plenty of options. It's a conflict of interest issue: the entrepreneur will likely consider the possible consequences on the investment outcome of their response. I would really avoid asking someone out for a data when I'm in a position of power in their regard, as I'd prefer that whoever I'm asking out is free to decide without fear of consequences.
I'm not saying that nobody can ask someone out from a position of power: I'm saying that it requires a lot of extra care, as I guess it would only be ok after you get to know each other really well and there have been multiple blatant signs of interest from the other party.
By "protecting" the supposed victims of powerful men you deprive women of the option to date powerful men. And what if a student is interested in dating a professor?
Running a startup is not such a dire situation that it forces you to become a sex slave.
Edit: in reply to the comment below: The corollary of the statistic is that men don't have a lot of upward mobility. So often the unspoken assumptions that go along with feminism are simply wrong. Being able to marry upwards is a "privilege" of women mostly. It doesn't imply that they can not try other routes like everybody else.
YC doesn't allow me to comment further atm, so good bye.
The pool of female founders is already incredibly tiny. Asking VCs not to proposition women who are pitching them won't mean they are unable to date.