A Reminder To Investors • Hacker News Board

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#191

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Aug 12, 2014, 6:23 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #184

axlprose wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then the fact that we have powerful regulatory bodies like the EPA, and are much better off environmentally than countries like India and China is somehow just a fluke? Global warming is an environmentalist issue, but environmentalism != coherent global warming prevention -- that's really not a small problem, and would be a tall order for any nation to fill.

> Then the fact that we have powerful regulatory bodies like the EPA, and are much better off environmentally than countries like India and China is somehow just a fluke? The EPA does not exist to address global warming specifically. The claim I addressed was that "we as a country are trying to do something about global warming", not "we as a country are trying to do something about environmental issues more generall…

[deleted]

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#192

Post by dsirijus » Tue, Aug 12, 2014, 6:24 PM UTC

LandoCalrissian wrote: post #183

dsirijus wrote: post #129

Not insignificant, but major amount of relationships and subsequent marriages have sprung from flirts and advances at work, obviously frequently including power-disbalanced positions. [1] While this particular (and pretty stringent at that) declaration of code of conduct is probably conducive to business and PR goals of YC, I'm far from convinced it will be advancing health of relationships between individuals concer…

Just be a professional, come on. Engaging in any kind of romantic relationship with someone who you are giving millions of dollars is the definition of unprofessional. You shouldn't have that job, period, end of story.

Worked for Hefner.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#193

Post by equoid » Tue, Aug 12, 2014, 6:25 PM UTC

dkarapetyan wrote: post #144

SkyMarshal wrote: post #70

Possibly prompted by this anonymous Forbes piece making the rounds on Twitter recently: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2014/08/07/what-it...

The anonymity in that article doesn't help. It doesn't matter how much money you have the kind of behavior described in that article is unacceptable. I like to think that the majority of technologists and entrepreneurs are humanists and they are in it to make the world a better place. I also like to think that if the article wasn't anonymous there would be non-violent collective action to make it known in no uncertai…

You may like to think that about entrepreneurs but you'd be almost clinically deluded if that was what you did think.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#194

Post by personZ » Tue, Aug 12, 2014, 6:26 PM UTC

brogrammer90 wrote: post #93

This is no surprise. There's no metro area in the USA as cringe worthy as SV when it comes to relationships between men and women. Sexually frustrated neck beards and moderately attractive women do not mix. I can't even count the number of times a coworker has confessed his love to another, get rejected, then go out of his way to sabotage their career.

YC investors are not "neckbeards". Further, this is a professional issue in every industry, in every locale.

In hospitals. On the factory floor. In the retail outlet. At the fast food joint. Put the sexes together and we're still trying to figure out how to make it work, trying to break free of the cloistered, sexist past. In New York, Boston, Toronto, and London.

And ultimately you have to blame popular media to some degree. In movies or shows where attractive people work together, the plot of the movie virtually always has them coupling up. It seems, from a media perspective, that you can't professional work with someone of the opposite sex (talking specifically about that situation) without it becoming romantic.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#195

Post by sebkomianos » Tue, Aug 12, 2014, 6:28 PM UTC

StandardFuture wrote: post #136

sebkomianos wrote: post #45

In which world, universe, philosophy, call-it-however-you-want, is "romantic behaviour" more sexist than holding a "FEMALE Founders Conference"?

While I agree with you that an "All-One-Sex Conference" is still sexist, I am still downvoting you for showing a lack of sympathy for the people affected by the topic at hand . You'll get over it.

Congratulations.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#196

Post by dkarapetyan » Tue, Aug 12, 2014, 6:28 PM UTC

equoid wrote: post #193

dkarapetyan wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The anonymity in that article doesn't help. It doesn't matter how much money you have the kind of behavior described in that article is unacceptable. I like to think that the majority of technologists and entrepreneurs are humanists and they are in it to make the world a better place. I also like to think that if the article wasn't anonymous there would be non-violent collective action to make it known in no uncertai…

You may like to think that about entrepreneurs but you'd be almost clinically deluded if that was what you did think.

Really? Clinically deluded? I might have to push the date for my sabbatical then.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#197

Post by MadManE » Tue, Aug 12, 2014, 6:29 PM UTC

bdcravens wrote: post #140

dsirijus wrote: post #129

Not insignificant, but major amount of relationships and subsequent marriages have sprung from flirts and advances at work, obviously frequently including power-disbalanced positions. [1] While this particular (and pretty stringent at that) declaration of code of conduct is probably conducive to business and PR goals of YC, I'm far from convinced it will be advancing health of relationships between individuals concer…

Yes, and some of our most brilliant minds probably had ancestry that was the product of forced rape. End still doesn't justify the means.

Equating someone asking a business contact out on a date to "forced rape" is insane. You are the problem.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#198

Post by balls187 » Tue, Aug 12, 2014, 6:34 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #155

So here's what I think it comes down to: You're an investor. You're at demo day. There's this female founder, and you think she's hot. You interact with her purely professionally, but you still feel the chemistry, and you think she does, too. You want to ask her out, because you think there might be something there. So what do you do? You resign from your role as a VC/investor. That's what it's going to cost. Then yo…

>But if asking her out isn't worth more to you than your job is, then leave things professional.

Quit your job just to ask a woman out?

Asking a woman out you recently met isn't sexual harassment.

Some advice to your specific example:

1. Don't do it during demo day. She's a founder, and that's her time to meet with investors.

2. If you are planning on investing in her company- potential conflict of interest. Don't get involved personally.

3. If you don't have any desire to invest in her company-don't mislead your intentions. If you follow up and ask her out, don't be ambiguous with a coffee/lunch meeting that could be construed as business related. Do something that is clearly a date-like activity.

4. Don't use your influence/position for personal advantage.

Yes I'm going to generalize here, but no woman, even if she isn't interested, is going to be upset if you asked her out, if you do so at the appropriate time, appropriate place, and in a respectful way.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#199

Post by dkarapetyan » Tue, Aug 12, 2014, 6:34 PM UTC

mkal_tsr wrote: post #174

dkarapetyan wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but you're not going to solve the immediate problem of the various imbalances in the tech world in terms of gender equality and general power imbalances if stuff like this continues to remain anonymous. It might not seem like it but by choosing where, how, and who I work for I'm making a deliberate choice. I know that this is a luxury and that not many people have it but I like to put that luxury to good use and…

Well, if you go purely anonymous in all aspects, you prevent a lot of these things from even being an issue and rely only on the merit of the idea, quality of MVP, and thoroughness of the business plan - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8169051

I don't use Uber. I use Lyft. Why? Because Lyft is better people. Given the choice I'd rather support the better people. SF is full of startups that are indistinguishable in terms of technical merit, idea, business plan, etc. They are different though when it comes to the people.

Re: A Reminder To Investors

#200

Post by TheCowboy » Tue, Aug 12, 2014, 6:38 PM UTC

simplemind wrote: post #125

yid wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

How would you know? We all know investors who only have male-founded companies in their portfolios.

Then they're effectively "leaving money on the table" by avoiding female founders, because they're being too risk-averse. The risk of false accusations that will blow up are too small to worry about.

If they're not outright bad investors, they are at least investing a suboptimal way.