Hacker News Reader

Comment by p49k | Hacker News Reader

Is it racist and sexist to use private funds in order to counterbalance what is clearly a long history of racism and sexism in preferring white males in VC capital? You might have a point if the gender/racial makeup of founders were anywhere close to that of the population.

View on HN

I don't think that's an argument that it is not sexist and racist. It is expressly so. The argument you are making is that it is justified to be expressly sexist and racist to counterbalance past sexism and racism.

I disagree. To say something is sexist or racist would imply that the intent is to favor these groups due to a belief that they are superior, or due to a hatred toward the other groups rather than as a strategy to counter the effects of historical racism/sexism. You could argue they are discriminatory, though.

I guess we must fundamentally disagree. The decision is based on the sex and race of the founder. That speaks for itself. Justification for it is based on history. All the other dressing up is just an attempt to avoid being labeled a racist/sexist.

> The decision is based on the sex and race of the founder.

What you just described is the definition of discrimination, not racism or sexism. These words have meanings and you can look them up. Saying it's racist and sexist is just a disingenuous way to shore up drama when a more accurate (but less provocative) term is available.

Yes, it is discrimination based on sex and race. I think you are arguing that what matters is the feelings of the person when they discriminate. The intent is the same - choose one over the other because of their sex and race. But if they feel they are righting a past wrong then it is not sexism/racism, whereas if they are doing it because they dislike one group then it is sexism/racism. And that is where the fundamental disagreement lies. I don't subscribe to the feelings argument.

It's not about feelings; it's about intent. The intent is not at all the same, and you know it. There's a huge difference between discrimination designed to suppress a group of people, and discrimination designed to give disadvantaged people a chance that they should have been given in the first place. The former describes 200+ years of American history, and the latter describes a handful of efforts in recent history.

From the Merriam-Webster English dictionary:

> sexism > noun sex·ism \ ˈsek-ˌsi-zəm \ > 1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women

> racism > noun rac·ism \ ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi- \ > 3 : racial prejudice or discrimination

Racism is defined as discrimination based on race or ethnicity.

Sexism is defined as discrimination based on gender or biological sex.

Both are well defined terms in English both in dictionaries and general usage. Stop trying to play games with words and start explaining why you think racism and sexism are ok.

It is really not “racist” and “sexist” in the way that GP is claiming. But you’re either someone who thinks all instances of discrimination are morally equivalent or not.

While the goal is laudable, this is surely racist and sexist. The language-control group wants to avoid the label, because then those weaponized words will lose their impact. It remains racist and sexist for a good purpose.

Yes, this is absolutely racist and sexist. This is explicitly segregating people by gender+race and disallowing people from participating because of their gender or race. Instead of doing this, we should work to ensure that gender and race plays no role in earning VC funding.

If you're a VC fund that discriminates by race and gender in the fight against "racism and sexism", then your definitions of those two terms do not rely on ethnicity or gender at all. The terms "racism and sexism" as used here describe power, first and foremost. Those holding power are necessarily prejudiced, and to discriminate against them cannot be a prejudiced act; by your definition, the minority cannot be prejudiced, and are but victims of prejudice.

The truth is this: To have equality of outcome across race and gender in entrepreneurship is impossible. It's unclear why anyone at all is interested in taking extremely high risk positions as founders of start ups relying on fast growth and with a small amount of burn; to segment that group by racial and gender identity is to shame and belittle the ones deemed "to hold the power". And when they cry out that they are being discriminated against on the basis of race, you are one step ahead of them: Your convenient re-definition of racism to be an act only committed by those of power denies the shamed their rightful defense.

Yes, it is racist and sexist.

Only in a historical and societal vacuum is it racist and sexist.

Racism does not depend on history or society, it depends on whether or not there is active racial discrimination. You imply that only the powerful may be racist, and that discrimination towards the racial or gender group "of power" is not only not racist, but a virtuous act.

It is always racist and sexist to discriminate on racial/ethnic or gender grounds.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com