Live data from Hacker News

Thoughts on YC's Female Founders Conference

techrotica.tumblr.com

31–40 of 58 posts

Re: Thoughts on YC's Female Founders Conference

#31
post #2

I don’t know why this comment struck me as odd … maybe it’s because the only people I know who identify themselves specifically as “nontechnical cofounders” are women. This means that you seriously need to go meet more founders. There are probably as many non-tech founders who are men as tech founders. These founders(such as Alexis from reddit) have filled the role in a very similar manner as Jessica describes.

Yeah, I tell people all of the time that I am a non-technical founder. I often do it to explain to other non-technical founders what they can be doing prior to finding a co-founder, because we had achieved a ton before we ever did.

Re: Thoughts on YC's Female Founders Conference

#32
post #25
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alexis has a record of identifying himself as the non-technical founder. So do many, many other founders. Just do a google on this query to see founders describing themselves as non-technical: non-technical founder site:news.ycombinator.com

From what I remember, those describe themselves as ‘the business guy’ or ‘the marketing guy’ but give advice, mainly about the attitude to have to fellow ‘non-technical co-founders’, assuming often openly that they do have a needed skill-set, that happens not to be code.

The precise word that is used to describe your role in specific situations matters a lot less than knowing what it encompasses in whole. No one is saying anywhere that you should go out of your way to tell investors that your duties include cleaning the toilet and ordering food. No, to investors you are in charge of keeping lights on; in a meeting to discuss a partnership you assume charge of user growth; when it's time for lunch you assume charge of being the pizza boy/girl.

Re: Thoughts on YC's Female Founders Conference

#33
Putting on the conference was a great idea and was well executed, and I think is an important contribution towards improving the odds for female founders. To Jessica and the rest of the YC crew, thanks from the community. Please don't be discouraged by negative comments from the minority.

Re: Thoughts on YC's Female Founders Conference

#34
post #10
post #8

It's expected that every word anybody said during that conference will be scrutinized beyond what's appropriate, simply because it's such a touchy subject. That's probably the reason why the video of the conference was already taken offline today while I was watching it (edit: it's not, see below). Generally I think it would be more productive if judgements weren't done on a hair trigger, because that's what makes th…

That's probably the reason why the video of the conference was already taken offline today while I was watching it. No, we took the video offline because one of the speakers hadn't realized the talks were being filmed. It will be back once we edit that one out.

you might want to take it down from the livestream website as well

Re: Thoughts on YC's Female Founders Conference

#35
post #2

I don’t know why this comment struck me as odd … maybe it’s because the only people I know who identify themselves specifically as “nontechnical cofounders” are women. This means that you seriously need to go meet more founders. There are probably as many non-tech founders who are men as tech founders. These founders(such as Alexis from reddit) have filled the role in a very similar manner as Jessica describes.

Sure, but I think her point stands. They don't identify themselves as a nontechnical cofounder: they're the business guy, the money guy, the sales guy or the industry guy. Using a negative to describe one's own role comes across as very self-deprecating.

This is simply baseless.

I'm very proudly the non-technical founder of reddit, which I've always been very frank about. I've got citations galore. Drafting the blog post right now.

http://alexisohanian.com/on-being-a-proud-non-technical-foun...

Re: Thoughts on YC's Female Founders Conference

#36

> when you’re the nontechnical cofounder, your job is everything that’s nontechnical’ including grocery shopping and errand running. I don’t know why this comment struck me as odd As a non-technical cofounder, this is the truth. I'm not sure what expectations at large are, but I can corroborate this story and believe it should be most 'non-technical' cofounders expectation of reality. Take out trash, buy office furni…

Agreed. Even as simply the 'less' technical cofounder, if I can spot an opportunity to increase my more-technical team members time coding, I do it.

Re: Thoughts on YC's Female Founders Conference

#37
The first half sounds like an echo-chamber hugbox The second sounds useful, but mainly because the content was useful. Did any of the conference address what a female founder is specifically?

I'm still concerned that a Female Founders Conference would exclude men or people of other genders. Yes it's great to have a platform to stand as a woman, but what about trans* or non-traditional genders? Where do they go then? The whole idea of feminism is inclusion, which means including trans, queer and other genders and YES including men too.

Re: Thoughts on YC's Female Founders Conference

#38
I attended the conference. Being "non-technical" doesn't mean you're doing less important or less challenging work. You're part of a team, and you should be proud of it.

My husband and I have a startup. Yes, he is the technical side of the team. As the CEO, I mainly shape the vision for the product, strategize on how we grow, and am in charge of marketing. When we discuss our technical strategies, learning how to code is not enough. The vision for the company guides the technical decisions.

Just because I don't sit and code our product also doesn't mean that I'm clueless about the major tech decisions we make. For example, in choosing whether or not to build our products with PHP or Python, I had to learn the pros and cons of each language, and then we made the decisions together. BTW, Python it is :)

During the talk, there was a push to have more girls who code. And rightly so, since women are grossly underrepresented. But for now, I actually think that it's great to have women who have the confidence to found companies without being technical. As Kathryn from The Muse explained, Alex, her co-founder learned how to code. Necessity is the mother of invention.

As for what I got out of the conference, in brief, I learned that the talks I loved were the ones where the founder was humble and matter-of-fact.

Re: Thoughts on YC's Female Founders Conference

#39
post #21

This kind of article shows why we need more women in tech. Many, many more. Critical and insightful but also respectful and modest. One thing that was missing, though, was politics. Politics in the true sense of the word, namely, the power struggles in the tech society which give rise to the current status quo. Also, she says, "No one pretended tech was a meritocracy". The thing is, tech is a meritocracy, and that's…

work toward what should be

Ay, there's the rub: what should we work toward? This issue almost never gets discussed, except by implication. We hear over and over how we "need more women in tech". But even if everyone agreed that we do, how much more is enough? Should we stop after reaching 33% women? 50%? 60%?

Often we hear the vague assertion that the percentage of women in tech should be close to the percentage of women in the general population—you can hear it echo every time the word "underrepresented" gets uttered—but this assertion is rarely justified. And indeed we can see how potentially absurd this criterion is by applying it to cases that don't serve the same political ends as "more women in tech"—i.e., by observing that women are "underrepresented" in prison, men are "underrepresented" in the daycare industry, etc. (Putting more women in prison isn't often offered as a way to stick it to the Patriarchy.)

The assumption that increasing the percentage of women in tech is virtuous—quite a different goal, mind you, from encouraging all interested parties (female or not) to pursue the subject—pervades our discourse, to the point where "improve the percentage of women in tech" and "increase the percentage of women in tech" have become synonymous. To see through this trick, simply consider the similar case of the percentage of college graduates who are female. Women currently constitute approximately 57% of college graduates; i.e., women are overrepresented by a gap of around 14% vs. men. The question then arises: what would it mean to "improve" this percentage?

We see in a flash that "equality" has nothing to do with it—I have never seen any mainstream source call for "improving the percentage of women among college graduates" by decreasing that percentage—unless, of course, by "equality" we mean that having women overrepresented among college graduates will help address other inequalities, such as the preponderance of male CEOs, male professors, and male billionaires. In this case, we simply return to the beginning: what should we work toward? Should we strive for proportional gender representation in every field of human endeavor? Unless men and women (and, indeed, all people) are perfectly identical, this is a prescription for eternal conflict—a fair characterization, I'd say, of our lamentable status quo.

Re: Thoughts on YC's Female Founders Conference

#40

It occurred to me recently that if the goal is to eventually get to gender equality, female focused tech groups should set the proportion of their tickets available at x% female, y% male where x and y are the inverse of their proportions at some equivalent male dominated group. Over time, this policy should pull men and women together instead of apart. What good is it if women only know other women and men only know…

Nothing is wrong with your point, but you are applying a 1->N scaling strategy to a 0->1 problem. That is to say, this type of event is brings people together because n=small, and the act of concentration brings more scaling effects that a larger act of dispersion. Over time, this will shift...and your preferred methods will make more sense in a context where dispersion is more important than concentration. But it is a good point to make that neither one is perfect or viable as a standalone method.
Post reply on HN