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

A Reminder To Investors

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 290 posts

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#81

Post by intortus »

sebkomianos wrote: post #60
intortus wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good question. Who's looking after the interests of male founders?

It's not about the interests of anyone. It's about trying to fight sexism but instead of educating the people you try to create an environment where it can't exist. It's like trying to fight sea pollution by making swimming pools. You can enjoy your time in a pool but the pollution in the sea is still there.

Your analogy makes no sense.

If you've read any of the previous Y Combinator statements on sexism against founders, you'd know that position being taken here is one of removing inefficiencies in the system. All the women being literally chased out by male investors who are seriously abusing their power just to get their rocks off is considered to be a huge opportunity cost. A female founder conference is a workaround, and it makes you sound really out of touch to complain about it.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#82

Post by zdean »

minimaxir wrote: post #71
avalaunch wrote: post #65

>Y Combinator has a zero tolerance policy for inappropriate sexual or romantic behavior from investors toward founders. This implies that some sexual or romantic behavior from investors toward founders would be considered appropriate. If that's not the intended message, inappropriate should be replaced with something like 'any and all'. While I'm not in any startup circles at the moment I would be curious for some cl…

> This implies that some sexual or romantic behavior from investors toward founders would be considered appropriate. No it doesn't. Grammatically, the "inappropriate" is used for vocal emphasis.

No, the "inappropriate" is a qualifier...so there is an implication that certain behaviors are appropriate. There are many ways the statement could have been worded to state a zero-tolerance attitude...this was not one of them.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#83

Post by avalaunch »

minimaxir wrote: post #71
avalaunch wrote: post #65

>Y Combinator has a zero tolerance policy for inappropriate sexual or romantic behavior from investors toward founders. This implies that some sexual or romantic behavior from investors toward founders would be considered appropriate. If that's not the intended message, inappropriate should be replaced with something like 'any and all'. While I'm not in any startup circles at the moment I would be curious for some cl…

> This implies that some sexual or romantic behavior from investors toward founders would be considered appropriate. No it doesn't. Grammatically, the "inappropriate" is used for vocal emphasis.

I think it does imply exactly that but don't really know how to argue the point. But regardless of whether it actually does or not, I doubt I'm the only one that thinks it does and thus if that wasn't their intent they should update the message to be more clear.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#84

Post by danielweber »

potatolicious wrote: post #29
Kluny wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You wait until after demo day and the conflict of interest has cleared, before asking someone on a date. It's not that tough.

Still inappropriate after demo day. Investors are a tight knit group and retaliatory action is always a concern. The recent two exposes from two female founders both pointed to investors' power/influence as coercive factors, even if no specific deal is on the table. It's maybe unfortunate it has to be this way, but investors should not hit on founders, full stop . For those who didn't see this when it was making its…

I dunno where I'm going with this, but, if I were a manager and wanted to date a subordinate, I imagine I could quit, get a another job, and then ask the person out.[1] Is this route not available to an investor? Are they in the position of "permanent boss" to a founder?

This is a good plug for my general advice: make sure your employees have enough time to date outside of work.

[1] I never did this or was in a position to do this. And, speaking from general life experience, I would want someone to shake my shoulders vigorously and tell me "get over it, find someone else, there are plenty of fish in the sea," but people can't always see obvious things like this if/when they fall for someone.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#85

Post by dogecoinbase »

VWQWrT wrote: post #74
untog wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sigh. Let me guess - you're a white dude, aren't you? Of course you don't see this happening. Of course you don't see discrimination in the workplace. Maybe - just for once - accept that the people who actually do face this stuff are telling you that it does happen, and that we should do something about it. Maybe try listening to a perspective - any one will do, really - that is different from your own.

That is so racist and discriminatory I don't even know where to start. It's no different than to assume the worst of "black" people or women. The worst part it is the way it has become acceptable to bash "white dudes" for the color of their skins and/or their gender.

Don't worry, buddy. White dudes still hold all the positions of power in the industry. It's still way easier to get a job as a white dude. People will believe you if you're a white dude, about both things that happen to you and about your abilities.

If this is "racism" or "discriminatory", it's the least effective ever, and any comparison to the biases experienced by women and people of color is insulting.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#86

Post by bdcravens »

Kluny wrote: post #7
tuneladora wrote: post #5

I perfectly understand intolerance towards sexual harassment but I wonder what qualifies as "inappropriate romantic behavior" in this context. You can not ask a founder "on a date"? What's if is the other way around? EDIT: of course this is coming from a nobody. I'm just curious.

You wait until after demo day and the conflict of interest has cleared, before asking someone on a date. It's not that tough.

Since there are some founders who go through YC more than once, that's not good enough.

There are 6 billion people on this planet. It's not that hard to figure out as a YC investor: if it's a YC founder, they're no longer part of that pool. Period. I'm amazed at the amount of "but what if ..." discussion here

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#87

Post by DatBear »

untog wrote: post #39
obvious_throw wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"all the time" in the mind of Shanley Kane, et. al. Disclaimers like these are mainly CYA statements such that the rabid hordes of social justice warriors don't throw Y Combinator under the bus on Pando because of a disgruntled founder looking to capitalize on feels where capitalizing on actual talent or acumen failed.

Sigh. Let me guess - you're a white dude, aren't you? Of course you don't see this happening. Of course you don't see discrimination in the workplace. Maybe - just for once - accept that the people who actually do face this stuff are telling you that it does happen, and that we should do something about it. Maybe try listening to a perspective - any one will do, really - that is different from your own.

Discriminating and then accusing someone of not seeing discrimination. Classy.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#88

Post by falsestprophet »

zdean wrote: post #82
minimaxir wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This implies that some sexual or romantic behavior from investors toward founders would be considered appropriate. No it doesn't. Grammatically, the "inappropriate" is used for vocal emphasis.

No, the "inappropriate" is a qualifier...so there is an implication that certain behaviors are appropriate. There are many ways the statement could have been worded to state a zero-tolerance attitude...this was not one of them.

There is a cohort of people here who seem to be upset with English grammar. It's bizarre.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#89

Post by loganu »

angersock wrote: post #43
lisper wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's important to understand WHY this is so: if you're an investor you are in a position of power over a founder. It is not possible in such a situation to make a romantic overture that is not tainted by the possibility that you are looking for a quid-pro-quo even if in fact you are not.

You know, I'm rather surprised that there hasn't/isn't a fund or group set up explicitly for that purpose--just being up front that yeah, there's tit-for-tat, if you want funding you may have to deal with this nonsense. I further wonder how close that would skirt the lines of laws against prostitution. I imagine such a thing would be amazingly toxic and hopefully collapse into a vortex of bad. EDIT: It's an offensive…

Downvotes because you're wondering why there isn't a VC fund/group "explicitly" set up to invest money in companies/individuals in exchange for some sort of sexual favors or for tolerating whatever behaviour you would throw at them.

It may just be an idea that you're not explicitly advocating, but it's an idea that's too close to what professionals here and the industry as a whole are trying to distance themselves from.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#90

Post by highCs »

bdcravens wrote: post #79
highCs wrote: post #64

While everybody can understand the anger, the bad behaviors of some individuals must not be generalized to a profession, can it? Maybe "Demo Day attendees" would be more appropriate than investors.

Professional athletes and drug use. Police officers and violence. Clergy and child sexual abuse. As a percentage, those situations are extreme minorities, but it's important to aggressively address serious issues that exist in an industry, and not shy away for fear of generalizing.

Interesting point. But if I rephrase things a little bit, I don't feel it is becoming better:

"A reminder to Clergy people: no sexual abuse on children are permitted."

I think if I was a member of that profession, I would feel insulted.

EDIT: rerephrased according to comment (that may invalidate the commentors' opinions).

Post reply on HN