VCs, don't compare me to your wife
medium.com
medium.com
We want to be taken seriously for our companies and our minds. All we want is to walk into the room and be an entrepreneur. Not a woman, or looked at through the lens of a "wife" or "mother"
I don't know if it is the anonymity, but the discussion here seems so negative. With a lot of cheap shots at me, and hell of a lot of assumptions made. Really lacking in nuance and honestly- lacking in respect.
This was hard for me to write. It has been hard for me to deal with and I didn't take a cheap shot at the VC. I could have ruined his life/career but I just wanted to make a point, and show people what women have to deal with in an honest and frank manner.
I closed my first startup because I didn't feel like I could fight on both levels- having to fight the odds to launch a successful company while fighting the industry itself.
I could only come back in, if I came in swinging. So I am taking it all on and I feel ready for it now. That is why I am speaking my truth and willing to take the risks that come along with that. I hope that women coming after me can just launch their companies without having to deal with all of this crap.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
I'm pretty upset that most of these comments (well, I guess most HN comments are like this) are trying to be so contrarian - why not just be supportive of something for once? Is the OP someone with a horrible track record of lying...
...or is she just a woman honestly trying to raise money and start a business, something many of the posters on here are trying to do as well?
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".
I'll be a programmer until the day I die, but FUCK that aspect of this industry. The information age was born in California, in the most liberal, feminist, and intelligent crucible of the Bay Area, and these shit weasels have come swooping in to scrape their money of the top. It absolutely sickens me, and I will jump with joy the day this bubble bursts and leaves these fuckers high and dry.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
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?
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.