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

101–110 of 290 posts

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#101

Post by tptacek »

7Figures2Commas wrote: post #98
tptacek wrote: post #4

Such a simple thing to write, but so useful. Waiting excitedly to see who else will follow suit. Good call.

I guess I'm not as easily impressed as you are. Sam Altman recently wrote[1], "Yes, it’s awful to hear the horror stories of wildly inappropriate behavior from investors to the entrepreneurs pitching them. (Unfortunately, stories like these are not super rare, but because there’s a big cost to going public with them, most never get told. My hope is that YC has enough leverage at this point to make it clear that this…

Huh? Both statements can obviously be true.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#102

Post by anigbrowl »

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.

It may be intended that way but it's not semantically appropriate. I noted the same ambiguity as the grandparent poster immediately and found it somewhat confusing given the 'zero tolerance' clause that immediately preceded it. Every definition of the word 'inappropriate' relates to specific contexts. Using it as a universal is simply wrong, however common it might be in some circles.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#103

Post by elleferrer »

DrJokepu wrote: post #57

You apply for a job or you build a startup and you want to be a professional. You want to do awesome things. Then someone else comes around, whether from a position of power or not and displays romantic or sexual interest towards you. No matter how polite it is, it irreversibly changes the previously professional relationship in a very discomforting way. It's a dick move and it's shit like this why many women shy awa…

>it irreversibly changes the previously professional relationship in a very discomforting way.

This is very true.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#104

Post by tptacek »

simplemind wrote: post #100

Sadly, I sometimes worry that explicit moves like this deter investors from working with female founders. If the risk is, "I have to watch every little thing I say/joke with a female founder lest I get blacklisted", if I was a VC, I might choose to avoid female founders altogether. Wonder if the better solution involves more carrot and less stick.

You think YC won't notice that, or will continue working with investors that studiously avoid investing in women?

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#105

Post by steveklabnik »

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…

> This is a solid example of downvoting in HN being used incorrectly.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#106

Post by jp_sc »

dogecoinbase wrote: post #85
VWQWrT wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nope. Racism isn't ok, not even a as form of revenge, not even if it has little effect on a group as a whole.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#107

Post by swombat »

avalaunch wrote: post #94
swombat wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it ever acceptable for an investor to pursue a romantic relationship with a founder? After the founder is funded (by another investor), for example. Or if the founder initiates? As a founder and MD of a company, quite simply, the answer is a bold NO. Most of the opposite gender population is outside your company (or pool of possible investments). If you feel the urge, fish there, not in the tiny pond which you hav…

While most of the opposite gender population is outside your company (or pool of possible investments), most the opposite gender population that you interact with on a regular basis is likely not. That's not to say I disagree with you on your overall point. I just found that argument to be a little too dismissive of the reason one might be dating within their company or pool of possible investments.

Irrespective of that, it's still a terrible idea to be dating in that pool. If we're talking about a 50'000 people company, than maybe it's ok so long as there's no direct business relationship, but if you're the MD of a small company you should simply not entertain dating people within that company. Just the potential for a sexual harassment lawsuit by itself should be enough to stop anything in its tracks - let alone the moral and ethical implications.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#108

Post by sebkomianos »

intortus wrote: post #81
sebkomianos wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Okay, so let's be honest and direct and talk about the system and its inefficiencies. Because so far all this "no sexism" has everyone believe that it is about people, not "the system".

Which is why I am saying, if you care about the people - which we happen to describe with the term "females" in this case - you should strive to include them, not to create conferences, events and groups that "protect" them by isolating them.

If you wanted to do ballet tomorrow, would you prefer a "boys-only" class or a "regular" one?

By the way, thanks for the time and the effort you invest in actually discussing with me instead of just downvoting my comment - I appreciate it a lot as it is the only way for me to have a chance to understand where I am wrong and where I am right. :)

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#109

Post by loganu »

7Figures2Commas wrote: post #98
tptacek wrote: post #4

Such a simple thing to write, but so useful. Waiting excitedly to see who else will follow suit. Good call.

I guess I'm not as easily impressed as you are. Sam Altman recently wrote[1], "Yes, it’s awful to hear the horror stories of wildly inappropriate behavior from investors to the entrepreneurs pitching them. (Unfortunately, stories like these are not super rare, but because there’s a big cost to going public with them, most never get told. My hope is that YC has enough leverage at this point to make it clear that this…

I don't know, but it could be both? On one hand, most cases of harassment/ whatever never get exposed. On the other, YC thinks they have a good handle on the VCs they are working with, and believe that they are all (or mostly) above this behaviour.

The truth is probably somewhere in between, and it doesn't really matter. Both are explicitly stating that this behaviour is not tolerated and bears consequences.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#110

Post by yid »

simplemind wrote: post #100

Sadly, I sometimes worry that explicit moves like this deter investors from working with female founders. If the risk is, "I have to watch every little thing I say/joke with a female founder lest I get blacklisted", if I was a VC, I might choose to avoid female founders altogether. Wonder if the better solution involves more carrot and less stick.

> if I was a VC, I might choose to avoid female founders altogether.

If you're a VC, you should be adept at assessing risk. If you think that the "risk" of working with female founders outweighs the potential upside, you're definitely not going to be touching my money and I'd rather not have any of yours.

Post reply on HN