If you don't want to be in a position where someone can hold power over you and judge you, then don't put yourself in a position where someone can hold power over you and judge you.
Admittedly I've never raised capital, but I'd expect that if this is your attitude toward raising money or toward investing, you won't do well. Asking for investment isn't begging for money. It's a sales pitch. Likewise, investing isn't charity, it's a purchase of equity with the expectation of a profitable return. Your comparison belittles the author and offers no real insight into the discussion.
Which makes your point close to worthless. When you are raising money, you are in one of these two positions:
1. Investors are knocking your doors and giving your offers and you have/can/might pick.
2. You burned through all of your initial cash and now you are 3 months away from music stopping. You have to literally beg for money to save your dream.
But it sounds like she is completely fine with walking away from these VCs. That she will just go to another VC that she likes and that she isn't "begging" at all.
Yeah, they have the power to make decisions on whatever backwards reactionary criteria they want, since they have all the money (who's arguing that?), but super hot take here: that's actually bad. Actually, that's pretty much the definition of structural sexism (which is bad).
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.
> 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."
... 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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
The conversation that made her post the rant was obviously she asked the guy why there is less women entrepreneurs, the guy made clear he was uncomfortable with the questions and replied with a reply that is common sense ( ie: most women aren't entrepreneurs, thus there is less women wanting vc money) and she took offense at the reply.
I don't see where "the guy made clear he was uncomfortable" but I could guess he probably was. And again, it probably was taken out of context. However,
I don't see how his reply, in any shape or form is common sense. And it explicitly not the reason you give. "( ie: most women aren't entrepreneurs, thus there is less women wanting vc money)". He actually says, the reason is women are being mothers. That's why. But he's just old fashioned. And then guesses that most women prioritize that "[my wife] would rather be a mother and be with our kids" with respect to # of female ent.
She certainly didn't write that "everyone is against her." And telling what she thinks in person to the VC is not a replacement for having a discussion about the general problem in the open.
I don't know the author, or her life circumstances, but to believe that 'Because in my head, I can’t imagine a scenario where you trust someone with millions of dollars to run a business but think that they don’t know how to deal with childcare.' Is just sexism is idiotic.
It isn't the childcare itself, is the pregnancy and the 1st year that is the 'problem'. Women can and are as good entrepreneurs as men, but if for a second you think (exceptions excluded) women, during pregnancy and first months of a newborn can run a business without sacrificing something you must never been around that scenario. And if I was going to put a million dollars in your business and there is even a 5% chance you may end up pregnant, it will indeed be a minus in my book (as an investment though)
You either sacrifice the health of your baby with long nights, long working hours, stress, etc, or you sacrifice the company when you take those 2-3 days because morning sickness or tiredness don't allow you to be on your best.
Is it unfair? Yes, very, but pregnancy and breastfeeding is something that takes a toll on women and no matter what a partner tries to do to help, he can't really carry the baby in is belly or start producing milk. Think of it this way, if the entrepreneur was a man, it would be akin to asking how he would expect to keep focusing on their sports career (5+ hours practise a day) and running a VC-based startup.
Good point, however all of this only holds in the American west coast bizzarro world where the only way to build a successful company is to work 80 hours a week, not sleep, and ruin all your relationships.
There are plenty of examples of companies where sane working hours are the norm (irrespective of founder gender) and in those companies, the impact of a single founder/manager being less available/dependable for a while is also smaller.
Of course, there's a pretty large class of VCs that will only fund founders who're willing to go 100% kamikaze just for a spot on their power law curve, and your argument holds for them. But I know where I'd want my money from.
Stress (and being a founder is a very stressful time) is a very big no-no during pregnancy and can influence the gene expression of the baby.
But Even sane working hours are a problem. Here is a bit of a cognitive dissonance for the folks here at HN to ponder. I'm pretty sure you support maternity leave and even a leave on the last few weeks of pregnancy right (I do)? If that is the case, why? If you believe being pregnant/childcare (lets say only first 3 months) isn't a big hurdle and a job onto itself and as someone pointed below, a women may even work harder while pregnant, why support the maternity leave?
> Stress (and being a founder is a very stressful time) is a very big no-no during pregnancy and can influence the gene expression of the baby.
[citation needed]
"Systematic reviews have generally concluded that standard working conditions present little hazard to maternal or child health. A woman with an uncomplicated pregnancy who is employed where there are no greater potential hazards than those encountered in routine daily life may continue to work without interruption until the onset of labor."
"Psychosocial work stress (high demands and low control) was not associated with an increased risk of congenital malformations in a population-based cohort study"
It's not dissonant. Maternity leave is a right that one can take. Having a right doesn't mean everyone must be expected to use it to the fullest - some people prefer to do so, others don't.
Of course, we might have to mandate them for non-self-employed workers, since bosses are often shitty enough to penalize someone for using their rights, but barring that, it's their life.
And ask any doctor if what they did is the very best for their kid. The stress, the lack of bonding, the (I assume by 100+ hours a week) bottle feeding from the first few days.
If you can do it, sure, if you can have it all (as in, do the best for your career and the best for your newborn), I have my doubts. Pretty sure the single mothers with two jobs also do it, doesn't mean it is the optimal way to have a child.
ps: won't edit the parent post, but by exceptions I meant outliers... sorry, not native speaker.
> if for a second you think (exceptions excluded) women, during pregnancy and first months of a newborn can run a business without sacrificing something
I'm not an entrepreneur, but isn't sacrificing something part of the deal, regardless of gender or life circumstances? If you're launching a startup and trying to get VC funding, doesn't it go without saying that you're sacrificing things to that goal?
If that's the case, isn't the real problem that VCs are more comfortable with a man sacrificing his physical/mental health, family relationships, material belongings, retirement savings, etc. than with a woman sacrificing the same things? Or put another way, will VCs believe that a woman entrepreneur can balance her sacrifices against the good of her company as well as a man can balance his?
Much like confessing a dark secret, breaking-up, asking someone out, etc, my policy has never been to initiate or allow any serious, longwinded conversation over mobile/phone text.
It's hyperbolic, stilted, but not necessarily cringeworthy. It comes from the perspective of someone who believes they have been treated unfairly.
It's like when you go on an interview for a job and you say something, the interviewer understands it one way, you try to correct them, but you know their fist take is the one which will linger and you feel it's unfair.
Entrepreneurs are different in some regards. They have much higher risk tolerance, care less about doing things the "recommended way", etc. This isn't to say they are superior in any way. That is a different statement.
I wasn't saying that Entrepreneurs are better. I was trying to make the point that if you are going to segregate people according to "types" then see the person in front of you as a "Entrepreneur" and not a "woman"
You asked this guy why there weren't more female founders, so he gave you his personal opinion backed with his personal experience with his wife. Would you prefer that he lie to you instead?
No, she just happens not to like the way he (and apparently a good number of other VCs) mentally navigates the issue, and chose to write a blog post expressing these thoughts. She doesn't like the idea that mothers can't be founders because they "have better things to do".
Wait a second. Is this author saying that as a woman, she doesn't have any special insight into female users, isn't closer to the female audience, and doesn't bring any special female viewpoints into tech?
And in fact, the only similarity between her and another person is if the person is also an entrepreneur? There is no special female perspective, and therefore we don't get diversity of viewpoints or other cognitive benefits just by having more women?
Have you read the entire thing? It's about comparing them to VCs wives, presumably housewives, not about a special female perspective on, say a female focused startup, but being compared to a female who wants to be in a traditional role in a patriarchal society. Not sure how any one can miss it as badly as you did.
I read it. She's ranting about something else - a VC suggesting he has no female-founded companies in his portfolio because very few apply - and somehow this offends her.
But along the way, she claims that "the extent to which she is founding a company is the extent to which I have something in common with her", which pretty much contradicts the entire pro-diversity narrative.
I respect the writer drawing this conclusion based on a conversation. But can we have the chat from the beginning instead of just a few texts starting from Honestly- I'm the wrong person to ask. I think mothers have more important things to do ... be mothers?
I am not taking the VC's side but let's see the entire chat then form an opinion as the said VC isn't here to defend himself.
I believe the authors argument is that the VC's (or at least this particular one) use the antiquated idea that "mothers should be mothers" to subconsciously look down on woman founders who pitch, because they should be at home "being mothers" instead.
Defend himself? He's not even identified! It's just an example of what the author is talking about, it's not a personal attack. Even if you would interpret it differently, it doesn't really matter, because the subject is not that particular conversation.
This guy is literally a father. Why does he believe he can be a father AND a VC, yet women are incapable of being a mother AND a founder? Then he uses his wife as an example to extrapolate the desires of half the world population. He's absurd.
> When you ask me about having it all, or how am I going to manage my kids, I seriously think that you are insane. Because in my head, I can’t imagine a scenario where you trust someone with millions of dollars to run a business but think that they don’t know how to deal with childcare.
Is that not why they ask the question then?? If they don't think someone can handle childcare, then the author is right, they won't trust that person with millions of dollars.
I disagree that that's an appropriate or useful question, but if the VC truly thinks it is (and it's even actually legal), then shouldn't they ask all their potential entrepreneurs this question?
every entrepreneur needs to choose their investors wisely. And for me, misogyny is a deal breaker. I have kids. This is my second startup and I know what I am doing. End of story.
Not sure about legality of asking but woman statistically (80%+) are main caregivers to kids so asking this question only for females make sense.
It works both ways though - one well known company gives 4 month leave to primary caregiver and only 2 weeks to secondary on child birth. If you are female - you get it by default. If you are father and not single one at that - good luck. Every single person (from your boss down) will ask you why you are primary caregiver.
"asking this question only for females make sense"
This is a dangerous attitude. One other poster talked about "old school" but the truth is that things haven't improved for anyone. It's attitudes like this quote that are indicative of how it's always been - some people are sexist and some people are not.
We should not justify differentiating genders. People who do this(eg. Australian police who are mandating 50% female employees, regardless of suitability) should have the book thrown at them. In this day and age, gender should not be a variable in almost any job.
I'd like to point out that this is the same person who was baiting with the "look at how pitiful feminism has become" comment from below, and also that "radical" is an equally baiting statement.
>Getting women to pitch more and better isn’t going to change the dynamic of investors being mainly men who like to invest in people like themselves. We are setting up an entire generation of motivated women to put themselves “out there” only to be shot down.
>It is time for the next wave, and it has to be focused on men. We need gender diversity workshops, sensitivity training, sexual harassment workshops for CEOs, VCs and Angels.
These threads on HN are always extremely rough to read. I wonder what would need to happen for a more productive conversation around this topic to be possible? More participation, more moderation, better understanding, what would it take?
Significantly more moderation. Unfortunately the consensus here in the past is that they'd prefer the majority of the "moderation" to come from the community, which only serves to amplify the already echo-chamber-like qualities of the discourse here.
But make no mistake -- that those who moderate and administrate choose not to act does not absolve them of responsibility for the bigoted, status-quo-loving noise that dominates here and more than justifies the reputation HN has across the web.
Moderation isn't the problem. Moderation won't make contentious issues non-contentious. The problem is us. HN readers need to step up and provide a counterbalance to idiocy.
I think HN readers should do some soul searching, because this isn't contentious out there in the real world. The post has been picked up on a few different news sites, and nobody (even in the comments) is nearly as threatened by what I have to say as the folks who are on this thread.
I think you are right. Sexism stories always bring out the trolls here, and they tend to bring out ugliness in otherwise normal people.
I'll do some soul searching in this space since it's clear that few others will.
It took a long time for me to get to the root of sexism in myself and others. Gender is very core to identity and it's perceived as an attack on one's masculinity to be accused of sexism.
To rise past this deep urge is very difficult. To see females as people instead of objects is easy to do intellectually, very hard to internalize to the point to where you can look at a female programmer and actually see a programmer instead of a woman.
I think there is a certain level of ingrained social awkwardness in the tech community that exacerbates this. In other milieus, you'd never see things like codes of conduct becoming actual bones of contention. Everywhere else, guys might have their beliefs about the necessity of codes of conduct or otherwise, but know better than to actually express them. In tech, every idiot with an opinion thinks it's important enough to mouth off about.
Maybe a less hyperbolic, over the top, subtly smug article for the discussion to revolve around?
If you, as a writer, want someone to focus on a particular topic, you should generally avoid distracting your readers with ridiculous statements such as "entrepeneurs are an entirely different breed of human beings".
I can't answer why the thread is hard to read, but as for the blog. It is written by me, a professional Journalist and University Lecturer in Organizational Development and Management. It's called "colloquial" use of language so that even idiots can understand it.
Apparently, even dumbing it down doesn't make it idiot proof.
Maybe, you know, actual conversation? This woman is saying that whenever a VC says something she doesn't like, she gets up and leaves, and says "Sorry, I don't think this will be a 'good fit'." Then she tells the VCs it's their fault for saying something she didn't like - in a blog post?
What a ridiculous situation to even be considering talking about, yet here we are.
FYI- I tried actual conversation. But shocker men don't want to hear that they are sexist. I was then called "overemotional" and "abrasive" because I pushed back.
Any entrepreneur has to decide if an investor is a good fit, I have decided that misogynists are not a good fit.
I think that a lot of these conversations are happening at "Women in Tech" events and it would be great if there was a way for men to be more of a part of that
> it would be great if there was a way for men to be more of a part of that
I for one am too scared that I might blurt out something offensive inadvertently and get labeled a 'misogynist' which can pretty damning to one's career and something you cannot defend yourself against. All it takes is one person with an agenda to tarnish your reputation forever. I don't want someone tweeting at my employer with "are you ok with this .."
thanks but No thanks. I am going stay far far away from "women in tech" business .
Agreed. I know that when I am speaking to a "women in tech" I know that my every word would be put under microscope. I am a result of society like everyone else with its baises and prejudices.
So instead of talking about and examining my/our own prejudices, i have to pretend to be a morally infallible saint who is incapable of thinking "wrong" thoughts.
Nobody wants to discuss stress tests as part of that focus?
Under the assume the best case scenario situation, dude wanted to see how she responds to ridiculous stress. Well, we have an answer here. Hmm. Wonder what happens the next time something stressful happens. Some obscure legal thing or a reviewer makes fun of them or ...
The unfortunate part is being a woman she has an obvious stress test point of commenting on her gender. I suppose I'd get stress tested by asking how a non-ivy grad could ever play on a strictly ivy grad playing field. Or they'd make fun of my kids or ancestry or where I live. Ah I know, I suck because I should have been born to richer parents, that one is a classic. Anything to see how I respond to ridiculous stress levels seems like fair game.
Its a little further than your average HR drone would go when interviewing your average customer service rep, but, its kind of an important stressful job.
> The unfortunate part is being a woman she has an obvious stress test point of commenting on her gender.
We all have stress points. Research has shown men react to stress by isolating themselves, while women react to stress by looking for the company and support of their female friends.
Besides the obvious publication of her point of view in search of said support, her behaviour is more consistent with belief of being entitled to the VC money than anything else.
I think if she had disciplined the VC she'd have her money right now. Or at least this wouldn't be in the way. One fundamental responsibility of leadership is disciplining misbehavior. In this case the VC provided a ridiculous over the top sexist commentary somewhere between illegal and merely unethical, and instead of standing up for what is right and/or threatening discipline as best she can, she blogs about a private conversation. Not good at all. Is that how all ethical problems or discipline problems will be handled? VCs may as well pile up their money and burn it to save time.
The other side also earns a demerit. Come on, you stress test a female applicant by going for the girl angle, could you possibly be a little less creative? Previous people have probably noticed the whole "girl" thing, her being a female and all that. You could at least try, look into her childhood or education or management style or past employment or almost anything else to stress her would have been more creative. Still if a dud torpedo blows her out of the water, it wasn't really a dud, was it?
And an IM conversation isn't as under pressure as face to face, none the less I'd give her some credit for not doing as well as carefully reasoned "monday morning quarterbacking".
At first, I was thinking that "your wife" was a stand-in for someone who is not involved with your business, in the context of figuring out who your customers are.
I did a cursory lookup of the author on LinkedIn. It appears that she hasn't done anything really substantive in the startup world and that her primary role is to serve as a 'diversity mentor,' 'journalist', and 'strategy consultant.'
She had a startup for two years named BUKIT that was supposedly a distressed debt platform - sounds like it could be a lucrative idea/market, except for the fact that a google search for BUKIT reveals absolutely nothing.
Overall, this whole post reads like a frustrated SJW who hasn't been able to accomplish anything real in the tech world, so she takes out her grievances on 'socially backwards venture capitalists.' In my opinion, these types of people are a cancer in tech and should be called out as such.
Eric Smith Roberts (one of the founders of the open source movement) wrote a great short essay on this topic: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6918
Downvoted for the ad hominem dismissal of the OP, but also... "Eric Smith Roberts"? Really? If you're going to appeal to authority, at least get the authority's name right.
It's the same when an investor ask you do you have a job? are you going to quit it for your project? are you going to stick with your project long enough? Investors want you to have 100% of your time to your project, it's just how it works.
This would make sense if they same VC also asked a male founder if his wife was pregnant, and if he was going to abandon the startup for his family. Except we all know they wouldn't dare ask that question, because it would be extremely rude and potentially illegal (?). But for some reason it's ok with the female founders, again because of the idea that "mothers should be mothers" that this VC expressed in the text message.
Why do you think this doesn't come up? As a single father of course it came up in every funding/hiring discussion I ever had.
And it was perfectly reasonable for them to ask, due to the roles I was being offered. If I got offended by that, I didn't understand the sheer amount of work and effort those positions were going to entail.
If I'm hiring a 9-5 support tech, it's irrelevant. If I'm hiring a "kills the company if it's the wrong hire" position, you bet your ass I'm looking at it from every angle. And someone being able to commit 100% to that is very key - doesn't matter if it's kids, sports, hobbies, whatever. If you decide you want work/life balance, a startup founder is not for you. At least one that is funded by VCs.
It's not OK to discriminate against anyone. But here is at least one reason it is still done, even after almost everyone agrees that women can be great executives:
Hours per week spent on unpaid child care among dual-earner couples; respondent working full-time. Women: 49.8, Men: 27.2
Women and men still behave very differently as populations. This is not cause for discrimination against individuals, but it does explain (but not morally justify) the existence of different priors on members of the two populations.
jesus christ! what are these comments? there is a valid point here. i don't even like how the author writes but the point is this, taken from a response:
>> Imagine how many opportunities this firm has walked past because they’re old school. Shouldn’t their LPs be concerned?
What do you mean "old school?". I am from the other side of the planet than the US and i am statistically flooded with stories of the problem of under funding women, with discrimination based on sex and with the pregnancy issue as a roadblock to career for women. how can a manager in a VC have an "old school" opinion in 2016? these days you either have one opinion or the other, there is nothing "new school" in realizing that women are less funded because their biologic life is seen as a liability by the males of the species who have all the money. Jesus!! Old school??
Your wife? You are someone who should be smart enough to predict success and you bet other people's money but you know so little about a woman's determination that your best answer is by proxying to your nearest women.
This is like me having a billion dollars explaining that i believe rockets are not funded as easily as dating apps because I am old school and i think all physicists are nerdy introverts and they'll never be good at running a business because they rather stay and read science fiction books all day long, and i know that because my physicist cousin who is also a drunk is exactly like that.
And quotas? Who is even talking about quotas? Amazing!
This is like me having a billion dollars explaining that i believe rockets are not funded as easily as dating apps because I am old school and i think all physicists are nerdy introverts and they'll never be good at running a business...
A direct translation of the VC's theory would be that "that's [nerd hypothesis] why I think there are less nerd founders...which translates to less funded companies by nerds". Fewer apply so fewer are accepted.
There is a corollary to First amendment (Freedom of Speech), it is Freedom to not listen. I think people should exercise it more than trying to shutting others.
My question was if the VC had funded any women led start ups. He said "no"- I said that I thought it was strange and asked him why he thinks women aren't getting funded, and that is where the conversation begins.
I have invested time and energy but not money. (I don't have that kind of money)
IMO, being a mother is a bonus but no, I don't think that they should take it into account. I think that they should look at the idea and ability to execute.
I think that all the data shows that women led companies are more successful, so if they do take it into account it would only be to the benefit of the mother.
The data does show that women led companies do better- but the fact that there are so few women who have to fight to make it to the top could mean that the women who get there are better- not that women in general do better.
I'm just wondering how the same statement (if the data would show it) would be perceived if it would be said for males.
Studies could also show that there is a higher chance for mothers to quit along half the way due to child-related reasons (made up studies for the sake of argument). That on the other hand would be considered misogny.
And I'd take it with a grain of salt as the sample sizes are vastly different.
That being said, do you have a link somewhere? Would really be interested to read that.
I'm not sure if I agree that being a parent is a bonus.
I had a friend, male who was happily married. He cofounded a company with another right before he had a kid. Because his wife was the main breadwinner, he often times had to work-from-home to care of the baby. The needs of his company barely overlapped with the need of the child, and eventually it got to the point, where he ended up leaving the company to focus on the child.
The company he cofounded has since died.
You're right that some VC's will unfairly connect woman with motherhood, i.e. "Ah you're a female founder so you're going to have a kid and then the company will die!"
That is sexism, no doubt. But parenthood, regardless of gender, will impact that founder's level of commitment to the company, especially if the founder is the main caretaker of the child.
If this were an established company, yes: both parents can work and raise a kid well. But a startup asks for more than a 9-5 commitment: it's like another child that requires constant attention and love. Its specific needs differ greatly from human children[1] but those needs are just as pressing and as demanding, if not more so. Anything less portends an early end.
> "Ah you're a female founder so you're going to have a kid and then the company will die!"
> But, it is risk if one of the founders had newborn children. In normal employment, both parents can work and raise a kid... but, a startup demands more than a 9-5 commitment. It's basically another child.
I'm not sure that you're mistaken, in terms of what you were trying to communicate.
I'm amused noting that people do have multiple children, and people aren't generally worried that the older ones will die when a new one comes along...
Right, that was poor diction. I have since updated articulating my viewpoint more correctly: that startups have needs which are different from a child's need but are just as pressing and demanding due to the love you've invested in both.
Venture capitalists are interested in a particular kind of person who can provide them with a quick profit: young people who are naive enough to prioritize business over their own life. If you are willing to spend a few years sleeping under a desk, drinking Soylent, then you are a good candidate for venture capital. If you have your head on your shoulders, you probably want to start a lifestyle business, and that is no good for venture capital.
People here defend VC because they think they too will get rich quick, but they won't, and in the meantime they will be very stressed and nasty on the Internet. Welcome to HN.
This "female founder" lacks diligence. There are many wrong things:
1. The guy on the conversation has an opinion. Everyone is entitled to his opinion. He is clearly not the guy doing the picking/selection. Just a stuff crew. Shaming people for their opinions (it'd have been worse to name him) is just as racist/sexist as you endure.
2. Every one, race, religion... goes through this. You can't prevent selection bias. But you might be able to defeat it with your startup performance. Human are biased, and trying to change their minds will not work. Which will lead us to the third point.
3. Markets will decide. In a capitalist market, the inefficient guy will not stand for long. In the long term, the efficient guy will win. Which is probably why software is eating the world. If women are better (or equal), things will work out in their favour on the long term. (e.g.: a VC that keeps an eye on female-founders because they are under-valued).
Conclusion: Don't write offensive and controversial blog posts when you are trying to raise money.
157 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 222 ms ] thread> I suppose that VCs can compare you to whomever and whatever they like
Generally true of all people, not just VC. Is it not, therefore, reasonable then to in turn judge said person for that behavior?
> when they have money that you are professionally begging for.
Which is cool because they are in the position of power?
Could you clarify? The author did not take the money. Politely declined and moved on.
If you don't want to be in a position where someone can hold power over you and judge you, then don't put yourself in a position where someone can hold power over you and judge you.
It's that simple.
Which makes your point close to worthless. When you are raising money, you are in one of these two positions:
1. Investors are knocking your doors and giving your offers and you have/can/might pick.
2. You burned through all of your initial cash and now you are 3 months away from music stopping. You have to literally beg for money to save your dream.
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.
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."
I don't think that it is unreasonable to consider any parent as having more important things than startups to do.
"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"
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).
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.
There's really no question that mothers, and females in general are statistically riskier investments in todays society.
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 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.
I don't see where "the guy made clear he was uncomfortable" but I could guess he probably was. And again, it probably was taken out of context. However,
I don't see how his reply, in any shape or form is common sense. And it explicitly not the reason you give. "( ie: most women aren't entrepreneurs, thus there is less women wanting vc money)". He actually says, the reason is women are being mothers. That's why. But he's just old fashioned. And then guesses that most women prioritize that "[my wife] would rather be a mother and be with our kids" with respect to # of female ent.
And she took offense to that -- and so do I.
And then goes home to write a blog-post about how everyone is against her. If this is not playing-the-victim then I don't know what is.
It isn't the childcare itself, is the pregnancy and the 1st year that is the 'problem'. Women can and are as good entrepreneurs as men, but if for a second you think (exceptions excluded) women, during pregnancy and first months of a newborn can run a business without sacrificing something you must never been around that scenario. And if I was going to put a million dollars in your business and there is even a 5% chance you may end up pregnant, it will indeed be a minus in my book (as an investment though)
You either sacrifice the health of your baby with long nights, long working hours, stress, etc, or you sacrifice the company when you take those 2-3 days because morning sickness or tiredness don't allow you to be on your best.
Is it unfair? Yes, very, but pregnancy and breastfeeding is something that takes a toll on women and no matter what a partner tries to do to help, he can't really carry the baby in is belly or start producing milk. Think of it this way, if the entrepreneur was a man, it would be akin to asking how he would expect to keep focusing on their sports career (5+ hours practise a day) and running a VC-based startup.
There are plenty of examples of companies where sane working hours are the norm (irrespective of founder gender) and in those companies, the impact of a single founder/manager being less available/dependable for a while is also smaller.
Of course, there's a pretty large class of VCs that will only fund founders who're willing to go 100% kamikaze just for a spot on their power law curve, and your argument holds for them. But I know where I'd want my money from.
Stress (and being a founder is a very stressful time) is a very big no-no during pregnancy and can influence the gene expression of the baby.
But Even sane working hours are a problem. Here is a bit of a cognitive dissonance for the folks here at HN to ponder. I'm pretty sure you support maternity leave and even a leave on the last few weeks of pregnancy right (I do)? If that is the case, why? If you believe being pregnant/childcare (lets say only first 3 months) isn't a big hurdle and a job onto itself and as someone pointed below, a women may even work harder while pregnant, why support the maternity leave?
[citation needed]
"Systematic reviews have generally concluded that standard working conditions present little hazard to maternal or child health. A woman with an uncomplicated pregnancy who is employed where there are no greater potential hazards than those encountered in routine daily life may continue to work without interruption until the onset of labor."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23472500
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22355087
"Psychosocial work stress (high demands and low control) was not associated with an increased risk of congenital malformations in a population-based cohort study"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24593253
Of course, we might have to mandate them for non-self-employed workers, since bosses are often shitty enough to penalize someone for using their rights, but barring that, it's their life.
If you can do it, sure, if you can have it all (as in, do the best for your career and the best for your newborn), I have my doubts. Pretty sure the single mothers with two jobs also do it, doesn't mean it is the optimal way to have a child.
ps: won't edit the parent post, but by exceptions I meant outliers... sorry, not native speaker.
I'm not an entrepreneur, but isn't sacrificing something part of the deal, regardless of gender or life circumstances? If you're launching a startup and trying to get VC funding, doesn't it go without saying that you're sacrificing things to that goal?
If that's the case, isn't the real problem that VCs are more comfortable with a man sacrificing his physical/mental health, family relationships, material belongings, retirement savings, etc. than with a woman sacrificing the same things? Or put another way, will VCs believe that a woman entrepreneur can balance her sacrifices against the good of her company as well as a man can balance his?
Anyone else cringe at this part?
It's like when you go on an interview for a job and you say something, the interviewer understands it one way, you try to correct them, but you know their fist take is the one which will linger and you feel it's unfair.
It comes off as someone who is very pretentious.
And in fact, the only similarity between her and another person is if the person is also an entrepreneur? There is no special female perspective, and therefore we don't get diversity of viewpoints or other cognitive benefits just by having more women?
That sure seems to contradict the narrative.
But along the way, she claims that "the extent to which she is founding a company is the extent to which I have something in common with her", which pretty much contradicts the entire pro-diversity narrative.
In any case, how important children should be for their parents is not the key issue here.
The key issue is how you treat your potential investors (preferably with respect).
I am not taking the VC's side but let's see the entire chat then form an opinion as the said VC isn't here to defend himself.
e: this guy said it better https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11105578
Is that not why they ask the question then?? If they don't think someone can handle childcare, then the author is right, they won't trust that person with millions of dollars.
If you go ask someone to give you their money, you have absolutely no right to complain about how they do their due diligence.
I suppose that could've been better worded as:
If you go ask someone to give you their money, you are in no position to complain about how they do their due diligence.
It works both ways though - one well known company gives 4 month leave to primary caregiver and only 2 weeks to secondary on child birth. If you are female - you get it by default. If you are father and not single one at that - good luck. Every single person (from your boss down) will ask you why you are primary caregiver.
This is a dangerous attitude. One other poster talked about "old school" but the truth is that things haven't improved for anyone. It's attitudes like this quote that are indicative of how it's always been - some people are sexist and some people are not.
We should not justify differentiating genders. People who do this(eg. Australian police who are mandating 50% female employees, regardless of suitability) should have the book thrown at them. In this day and age, gender should not be a variable in almost any job.
That's awful. More evidence that gender stereotypes need changing.
>Getting women to pitch more and better isn’t going to change the dynamic of investors being mainly men who like to invest in people like themselves. We are setting up an entire generation of motivated women to put themselves “out there” only to be shot down.
>It is time for the next wave, and it has to be focused on men. We need gender diversity workshops, sensitivity training, sexual harassment workshops for CEOs, VCs and Angels.
But make no mistake -- that those who moderate and administrate choose not to act does not absolve them of responsibility for the bigoted, status-quo-loving noise that dominates here and more than justifies the reputation HN has across the web.
I'll do some soul searching in this space since it's clear that few others will.
It took a long time for me to get to the root of sexism in myself and others. Gender is very core to identity and it's perceived as an attack on one's masculinity to be accused of sexism.
To rise past this deep urge is very difficult. To see females as people instead of objects is easy to do intellectually, very hard to internalize to the point to where you can look at a female programmer and actually see a programmer instead of a woman.
I think there is a certain level of ingrained social awkwardness in the tech community that exacerbates this. In other milieus, you'd never see things like codes of conduct becoming actual bones of contention. Everywhere else, guys might have their beliefs about the necessity of codes of conduct or otherwise, but know better than to actually express them. In tech, every idiot with an opinion thinks it's important enough to mouth off about.
If you, as a writer, want someone to focus on a particular topic, you should generally avoid distracting your readers with ridiculous statements such as "entrepeneurs are an entirely different breed of human beings".
We've had plenty of those, they still usually devolve into a shitshow.
Is it perhaps because the blog reads like as if it was written by a some freshman in sociology class?
Apparently, even dumbing it down doesn't make it idiot proof.
What a ridiculous situation to even be considering talking about, yet here we are.
Any entrepreneur has to decide if an investor is a good fit, I have decided that misogynists are not a good fit.
I for one am too scared that I might blurt out something offensive inadvertently and get labeled a 'misogynist' which can pretty damning to one's career and something you cannot defend yourself against. All it takes is one person with an agenda to tarnish your reputation forever. I don't want someone tweeting at my employer with "are you ok with this .."
thanks but No thanks. I am going stay far far away from "women in tech" business .
What are some of your thoughts around how to achieve this.
So, I would like to see events that are more focused on bringing people together.
So instead of talking about and examining my/our own prejudices, i have to pretend to be a morally infallible saint who is incapable of thinking "wrong" thoughts.
Under the assume the best case scenario situation, dude wanted to see how she responds to ridiculous stress. Well, we have an answer here. Hmm. Wonder what happens the next time something stressful happens. Some obscure legal thing or a reviewer makes fun of them or ...
The unfortunate part is being a woman she has an obvious stress test point of commenting on her gender. I suppose I'd get stress tested by asking how a non-ivy grad could ever play on a strictly ivy grad playing field. Or they'd make fun of my kids or ancestry or where I live. Ah I know, I suck because I should have been born to richer parents, that one is a classic. Anything to see how I respond to ridiculous stress levels seems like fair game.
Its a little further than your average HR drone would go when interviewing your average customer service rep, but, its kind of an important stressful job.
> The unfortunate part is being a woman she has an obvious stress test point of commenting on her gender.
We all have stress points. Research has shown men react to stress by isolating themselves, while women react to stress by looking for the company and support of their female friends.
Besides the obvious publication of her point of view in search of said support, her behaviour is more consistent with belief of being entitled to the VC money than anything else.
The other side also earns a demerit. Come on, you stress test a female applicant by going for the girl angle, could you possibly be a little less creative? Previous people have probably noticed the whole "girl" thing, her being a female and all that. You could at least try, look into her childhood or education or management style or past employment or almost anything else to stress her would have been more creative. Still if a dud torpedo blows her out of the water, it wasn't really a dud, was it?
And an IM conversation isn't as under pressure as face to face, none the less I'd give her some credit for not doing as well as carefully reasoned "monday morning quarterbacking".
> We talk to each other. We warn each other. If there aren’t any women pitching you, it’s not a pipeline problem.
Secret industry blacklist amongst women, causing them to actively avoid potential opportunities.
Blacklist prevents women from applying for VC funding, panels, etc.
Fire everyone. Point blank.
She had a startup for two years named BUKIT that was supposedly a distressed debt platform - sounds like it could be a lucrative idea/market, except for the fact that a google search for BUKIT reveals absolutely nothing.
Overall, this whole post reads like a frustrated SJW who hasn't been able to accomplish anything real in the tech world, so she takes out her grievances on 'socially backwards venture capitalists.' In my opinion, these types of people are a cancer in tech and should be called out as such.
Eric Smith Roberts (one of the founders of the open source movement) wrote a great short essay on this topic: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6918
And it was perfectly reasonable for them to ask, due to the roles I was being offered. If I got offended by that, I didn't understand the sheer amount of work and effort those positions were going to entail.
If I'm hiring a 9-5 support tech, it's irrelevant. If I'm hiring a "kills the company if it's the wrong hire" position, you bet your ass I'm looking at it from every angle. And someone being able to commit 100% to that is very key - doesn't matter if it's kids, sports, hobbies, whatever. If you decide you want work/life balance, a startup founder is not for you. At least one that is funded by VCs.
Did it come up before you were a father?
Hours per week spent on unpaid child care among dual-earner couples; respondent working full-time. Women: 49.8, Men: 27.2
Official Canadian Government data from 2013.
http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/rc-cr/stat/wic-fac-2012/sec4-eng.ht...
Women and men still behave very differently as populations. This is not cause for discrimination against individuals, but it does explain (but not morally justify) the existence of different priors on members of the two populations.
What do you mean "old school?". I am from the other side of the planet than the US and i am statistically flooded with stories of the problem of under funding women, with discrimination based on sex and with the pregnancy issue as a roadblock to career for women. how can a manager in a VC have an "old school" opinion in 2016? these days you either have one opinion or the other, there is nothing "new school" in realizing that women are less funded because their biologic life is seen as a liability by the males of the species who have all the money. Jesus!! Old school??
Your wife? You are someone who should be smart enough to predict success and you bet other people's money but you know so little about a woman's determination that your best answer is by proxying to your nearest women.
This is like me having a billion dollars explaining that i believe rockets are not funded as easily as dating apps because I am old school and i think all physicists are nerdy introverts and they'll never be good at running a business because they rather stay and read science fiction books all day long, and i know that because my physicist cousin who is also a drunk is exactly like that.
And quotas? Who is even talking about quotas? Amazing!
A direct translation of the VC's theory would be that "that's [nerd hypothesis] why I think there are less nerd founders...which translates to less funded companies by nerds". Fewer apply so fewer are accepted.
People who have be told to STFU over last 2 weeks.
1. marc andreessen
2. gloria steinem
3. stephen fry
4. margaret albright
5. richard dawkins
6. Meryl streep
If ppl like these who have public speaking experience are getting stfu then what chance do ordinary people have .
It starts by me asking if they have invested in any women, him saying No and then I say "Isn't that weird" and then the screenshots start.
Then we continue to chat and it turns into an argument.
Do you think that you being a mother isn't something that potential investors should take into account while performing risk analysis?
IMO, being a mother is a bonus but no, I don't think that they should take it into account. I think that they should look at the idea and ability to execute.
I think that all the data shows that women led companies are more successful, so if they do take it into account it would only be to the benefit of the mother.
That would be interesting. If anyone on HN has the data on this one way or another, I'd definitely like to see it.
The data on this would really be interesting.
Studies could also show that there is a higher chance for mothers to quit along half the way due to child-related reasons (made up studies for the sake of argument). That on the other hand would be considered misogny. And I'd take it with a grain of salt as the sample sizes are vastly different.
That being said, do you have a link somewhere? Would really be interested to read that.
I had a friend, male who was happily married. He cofounded a company with another right before he had a kid. Because his wife was the main breadwinner, he often times had to work-from-home to care of the baby. The needs of his company barely overlapped with the need of the child, and eventually it got to the point, where he ended up leaving the company to focus on the child.
The company he cofounded has since died.
You're right that some VC's will unfairly connect woman with motherhood, i.e. "Ah you're a female founder so you're going to have a kid and then the company will die!"
That is sexism, no doubt. But parenthood, regardless of gender, will impact that founder's level of commitment to the company, especially if the founder is the main caretaker of the child.
If this were an established company, yes: both parents can work and raise a kid well. But a startup asks for more than a 9-5 commitment: it's like another child that requires constant attention and love. Its specific needs differ greatly from human children[1] but those needs are just as pressing and as demanding, if not more so. Anything less portends an early end.
[1] Baby food v.s. VC funding.
> But, it is risk if one of the founders had newborn children. In normal employment, both parents can work and raise a kid... but, a startup demands more than a 9-5 commitment. It's basically another child.
I'm not sure that you're mistaken, in terms of what you were trying to communicate.
I'm amused noting that people do have multiple children, and people aren't generally worried that the older ones will die when a new one comes along...
From quick Google search
MORE SIBLINGS MEANS LOWER GRADES IN SCHOOL, STUDY SHOWS http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/siblings.htm
People here defend VC because they think they too will get rich quick, but they won't, and in the meantime they will be very stressed and nasty on the Internet. Welcome to HN.
1. The guy on the conversation has an opinion. Everyone is entitled to his opinion. He is clearly not the guy doing the picking/selection. Just a stuff crew. Shaming people for their opinions (it'd have been worse to name him) is just as racist/sexist as you endure.
2. Every one, race, religion... goes through this. You can't prevent selection bias. But you might be able to defeat it with your startup performance. Human are biased, and trying to change their minds will not work. Which will lead us to the third point.
3. Markets will decide. In a capitalist market, the inefficient guy will not stand for long. In the long term, the efficient guy will win. Which is probably why software is eating the world. If women are better (or equal), things will work out in their favour on the long term. (e.g.: a VC that keeps an eye on female-founders because they are under-valued).
Conclusion: Don't write offensive and controversial blog posts when you are trying to raise money.