Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tinder's Forgotten Woman: Whitney Wolfe, Sexism, and Startup Creation Myths

businessweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 102 posts

Re: Tinder's Forgotten Woman: Whitney Wolfe, Sexism, and Startup Creation Myths

#91

Post by mercer »

potatolicious wrote: post #23
_delirium wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the most interesting part of this article is that, if true, it seems like Tinder was kind of a pseudo-startup, a subsidiary of an established corporation given a more media-friendly backstory by positioning it as a startup. In retrospect I'm surprised that kind of thing isn't more common. (Or maybe it is?)

This sort of thing is, in my experience, quite common, but rarely successful. Large companies are aware of the innovator's dilemma and try to form skunkworks teams to find the Next Big Thing. But the problem is that most seem unable to assemble the right people, and give them the right autonomy, to really enable them to behave in a startup-like manner. Instead it just becomes recruitment joke where recruiters say "it…

One of the best examples of a 'skunkworks' project I can think of is the original Xbox and Xbox Live team (http://www.polygon.com/features/2013/11/11/4849940/xbox-live...).

The article describes quite well how successful this approach can be if you do it right. A company like Microsoft has such a massive amount of talent and resources, that even allowing a sliver of that to work on a project in isolation and freedom can lead to huge success.

I've personally experienced a 'startup in a big company' situation, and that also seemed to work quite well at first. Sadly, the whole thing fell apart once the big company started trying to take control back. In fact, I think the resulting situation was worse than if the 'startup' had never had a taste of independence.

Re: Tinder's Forgotten Woman: Whitney Wolfe, Sexism, and Startup Creation Myths

#92

Post by mercer »

msie wrote: post #13
minimaxir wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author had done an article on Tinder last year: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-09-05/dating-app-t... It's likely that current events help explain some oddities in Tinder's past.

Interesting differences in reporting between the two articles. 1) Rad is given more credit in the first with development of Tinder than in the second article where Munoz is now mentioned. 2) Wolfe isn't mentioned at all in the first: Mateen is credited with the idea of seeding the app at sororities and fraternities.

> That bothered me, but I didn’t have the space to tell the whole story in the magazine.

It seems like the reporter was aware that something was off, but only discovered the new details through Munoz (who might not be entirely objective as a source either?).

I can't tell whether it was shoddy journalism or just something that, at the point of the first article, wasn't too relevant.

Either way it reminds me once again of how factually incorrect many articles I read might actually be.

Re: Tinder's Forgotten Woman: Whitney Wolfe, Sexism, and Startup Creation Myths

#93

Post by mercer »

jjsz wrote: post #44
pauleastlund wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to pile on, since you've already been downvoted, but have you actually read the abusive texts that started this whole shitstorm? Nothing in this article speaks well to Justin's character, but I don't think any of it would be getting attention if it weren't for the can of batshit misogynist crazy he opened up on a female co-worker. I think the social media behavior documented here is pertinent context for those al…

Just researched for a bit and saw them. The author shouldn't have focused on her departure for simply being female and should have mentioned the texts. I conclude that he's an extremely sexist asshole, but not misogynistic. An overall hate would be mean not to be able to appreciate the art he's into. Nevertheless, due to the texts and the CEO ignoring the behavior, her outcry to the media was justified and needed. Ho…

The article doesn't really highlight the full extent of his messages and behavior though!

While it's likely that Mateen's conduct was influenced for the worse by their relationship and break-up(s), it went pretty far into 'misogyny' terrority, and can't really be justified.

I mean, I've said some nasty things in the heat of the moment through and after a break-up, but nothing like that.

That said, I agree the author could've done better. I was very confused by the introduction of 'Munoz' without describing who he was, for example. I get the impression the article was written in haste for maximum 'relevancy'.

Re: Tinder's Forgotten Woman: Whitney Wolfe, Sexism, and Startup Creation Myths

#94

Post by mercer »

cb3 wrote: post #90
cb3 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that being promiscuous is intrinsically bad. And why do you think that is? Maybe because it is intrinsically a bad thing to do. For civilization as we know it at least. Better outcomes for children from 2 parent households have been established through scientific investigation.[1] Why do you think a virgin bride is such a prized thing throughout cultures and ages? Greater numbers of premarital sexual partners are ass…

To those of you downvoting the above post, thank you. I'm always happy to have my perceptions improved, and I take the downvotes to indicate that you have forthcoming a carefully citationed rebuttal, countering and demonstrating the falseness of the above post and therefore of it being worthy of downvoting. I await the opportunity to learn something new.

While it's possible that you got downvoted for having a point of view that others disagree with, I like to think that you're downvoted mainly for bringing this up at exactly the wrong time.

Imagine you wanted to discuss, as objectively as possible, the role of clothing in relation to sexuality, and the different perspectives people have on that. It's quite possible that people would not downvote you for expressing that you think that, generally speaking, there's something to be said for modesty in clothing (unless of course it'd be just about women dressing down). Even if they disagreed.

But imagine posting that opinion in the context of a post on rape and sexual abuse. It would immediately be linked to the surprisingly and unfortunately wide-spread view that 'those women were asking for it by dressing like a slut'. Regardless of whether your points have merit or should be accepted, the context makes it unacceptable and, quite frankly, a bit suspect.

Re: Tinder's Forgotten Woman: Whitney Wolfe, Sexism, and Startup Creation Myths

#95

Post by dalore »

cb3 wrote: post #87
potatolicious wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same negative connotation of "faggot" and "chink" - i.e., that being promiscuous/Chinese/gay/etc is intrinsically bad. I can't speak for the whole world, but in North America at least I've never seen the word "slut" used in everyday speech that wasn't intended to be derogatory. Side note: "purely because it was considered bad 60 years ago for a woman to be promiscuous" I don't think that's 60 years ago, I'm prett…

that being promiscuous is intrinsically bad. And why do you think that is? Maybe because it is intrinsically a bad thing to do. For civilization as we know it at least. Better outcomes for children from 2 parent households have been established through scientific investigation.[1] Why do you think a virgin bride is such a prized thing throughout cultures and ages? Greater numbers of premarital sexual partners are ass…

Somebody think of the children!

How is being promiscuous bad? You've just talked about how it's bad for children to go through a divorce. Or are we talking about slutty children? What about male sluts? In fact who is talking about marriage at all?

Sounds like you have a preconceived notion and then try and justify it.

Re: Tinder's Forgotten Woman: Whitney Wolfe, Sexism, and Startup Creation Myths

#96

Post by filmgirlcw »

clay_to_n wrote: post #45
henryw wrote: post #6

Interesting that Tinder is owned by the company behind Match.com.

I remember somebody telling me this (that they weren't a "real" startup, and owned by the company behind Match), and then they came to my school to talk about their company - and spun it so seriously that I assumed the guy telling me was wrong. Not cool for companies to lie about their history, even if a lot of them do it.

And Tinder has done this from the word go. I remember talking to Rad and a few others when they were ramping up and the first thing I said was, "oh, OK, so you're part of IAC" and they got all defensive and tried to pretend like the fact that their offices, all their capital, all their equipment and their paychecks were from IAC was irrelevant and that they were still totally indie.

From talking to IAC people, they don't care what the founder say -- to a point -- as long as people are using the app. As this article made clear however, if you get too far off the messaging and start to oversell the "independent" angle, you will be smacked back into reality.

And then thing is, it isn't cool for a lot of companies to lie about their history -- but if you don't create this false narrative (and let's be clear, 90% of the startup narratives you hear are altered to make the story more attractive. The same is true for any other aspect of business (see also: Hollywood)), people won't pay attention. To a certain extent, as a society, we wall want to have that great Cindarella story.

We want to believe Michael Jordan was cut from his high school basketball team (even though that's not really what happened [1]) and then went on to be one of the greatest players of all time, because it helps create hope within ourselves that we too can overcome the odds and be that successful.

A successful startup born out of an incubator that is funded by a multi-billion dollar company with direct reports to the incumbent in an industry it is trying to "disrupt" is far less compelling for everyone than "we had this idea for this app and it spread like wildfire and now the VCs are coming knocking at our door."

That said, as icky and gross as I find every single person in this entire Tinder saga (to be clear, I think Wolfe was absolutely a victim but that doesn't mean I'd want to hang out with her), the truly notable aspect of the company (to me at least), which was its astonishing growth, was legit. That didn't happen because of IAC or Match (at least, not directly, meaning b/c of those employees or that branding). And that's still laudable. The service might be run by total jerks, but it's growth rate is still laudable and is still an interesting narrative into itself, even if we accept that the whole rags to riches, came out of nowhere aspect, is bullshit (which it is).

[1]: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/2012/01/16/106149626/...

Re: Tinder's Forgotten Woman: Whitney Wolfe, Sexism, and Startup Creation Myths

#97

Post by jedanbik »

jlees wrote: post #76
jedanbik wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's better than nothing. It's better than literally nothing.

Is it? Legality aside, if you define the limits of unacceptable behaviour then you're also saying that anything outside that is acceptable. If you hire decent human beings, hopefully your team can use their judgement and empathy to tell whether something's OK or not, rather than "S/he shouldn't have been offended, I wasn't breaching the rules laid down in the HR handbook! Grow a pair!" (On the flipside, if you hire d…

I'm sure that there are decent human beings that fall into these kinds of relationships. But when you want to avoid situations like this Tinder situation, and you actually want to do something about it in advance, rules are things you can point to in order to change a situation. You're waiting for shit to hit the fan when you assume the best of everyone.

Re: Tinder's Forgotten Woman: Whitney Wolfe, Sexism, and Startup Creation Myths

#98

Post by pbhjpbhj »

rhizome wrote: post #68
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> says a lot about how Rad and Mateen view the women who use their app // Isn't the point of the app to enable promiscuity. "Slut" is a word for a promiscuous woman, sometimes used for a prostitute, sometimes used of men (in UK at least). Surely they viewed the women who use the app as wanting to have free and easy sexual encounters, ie behave like sluts? When the slang that associated their app with the actions of t…

So, what would you say is the word for a man who uses Tinder often, a word that would make sense to the greatest proportion of people, i.e. not "slut," which you acknowledge is relatively rarely used to refer to men?

>what would you say is the word for a man who uses Tinder often //

I don't see what that has to do with anything, but _I_ would call a promiscuous person "promiscuous". AFAIK not all users of Tinder are using it to be promiscuous.

In slang terms I'd imagine "tinderslut" being applied to men and women. Certainly as many women (more?) use it as a hashtag on twitter, https://twitter.com/hashtag/tinderslut, but I think they're using it for women - didn't analyse the results beyond noting as many women appeared to be using it in the results returned to me. The usage seems to be more liberal than referring to promiscuity, rather there's a general sense of unacceptable flirting being indicated in the term, I'd say. Others will have far more knowledge of it I'm sure.

The blogspot user who titles herself "tinderwhore" refers to male users as "tinderbros".

Re: Tinder's Forgotten Woman: Whitney Wolfe, Sexism, and Startup Creation Myths

#99

Post by msellout »

potatolicious wrote: post #23
_delirium wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the most interesting part of this article is that, if true, it seems like Tinder was kind of a pseudo-startup, a subsidiary of an established corporation given a more media-friendly backstory by positioning it as a startup. In retrospect I'm surprised that kind of thing isn't more common. (Or maybe it is?)

This sort of thing is, in my experience, quite common, but rarely successful. Large companies are aware of the innovator's dilemma and try to form skunkworks teams to find the Next Big Thing. But the problem is that most seem unable to assemble the right people, and give them the right autonomy, to really enable them to behave in a startup-like manner. Instead it just becomes recruitment joke where recruiters say "it…

AutoTrader.com is a good example of a successful startup within a large company.

Re: Tinder's Forgotten Woman: Whitney Wolfe, Sexism, and Startup Creation Myths

#100

Post by dalore »

cb3 wrote: post #90
cb3 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that being promiscuous is intrinsically bad. And why do you think that is? Maybe because it is intrinsically a bad thing to do. For civilization as we know it at least. Better outcomes for children from 2 parent households have been established through scientific investigation.[1] Why do you think a virgin bride is such a prized thing throughout cultures and ages? Greater numbers of premarital sexual partners are ass…

To those of you downvoting the above post, thank you. I'm always happy to have my perceptions improved, and I take the downvotes to indicate that you have forthcoming a carefully citationed rebuttal, countering and demonstrating the falseness of the above post and therefore of it being worthy of downvoting. I await the opportunity to learn something new.

Hey I responded, but all I see is this whiney post trying to vindicate yourself.
Post reply on HN