« Finance: What is broken? | Main | Full Spectrum Finance »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

dave mcclure

not sure i got all that, but i think there are some positive & negative takeaways for me there... so be it.

re: the "do you work with women VCs?" question, the answer is absolutely yes. not sure in this context whether fingering them by name will hurt / help them or not, but at least for reference there are probably 5 women VCs that i work with somewhat regularly and/or trust. that's not a lot, but given there may only be 2x men that i say that about, i'd probably say that on average women VCs tend to have their shit together more than men (less of them, but their batting avg is better).

re: women entrepreneurs with kids -- yes, there's a time commitment to consider. but the more important point is demographic fit / customer knowledge. there's a woman founder i'm talking to about a language education product, and i trust her MORE *because* she has kids. i probably wouldn't find someone in that arena who didn't have kids, and so it's not so much whether she has time to be an entrpreneur, but whether she understands the market, the customers, and has the requisite skills to build the product. so i think my answer is "yes, i'd fund a woman founder with kids" but the reasoning isn't exactly what you were suggesting.

anyway, if i missed a few other points you wanted me to address lemme know. i don't think i understood what you wanted me to say about all woman entrepreneurs, but again i don't really evaluate on gender that much... i know talented entrepreneurs who happen to be women (or minorities, or gay, or whatever... doesn't really matter).

to some small extent, i think women & minority entrepreneurs probably do better than white males due to more oppression and them having to be better (think the Jackie Robinson effect), but again it's probably not the first factor i'd evaluate deals/people on.

your mileage may vary.

Jessica Margolin

Thanks for the response, Dave. I'm glad you are finding at least parts of this situation to be thought-provoking. I believe that what you did is being attacked because it feels ubiquitous. So consider "you" to be used in the general sense, at least from me.

What I was getting at with those questions was how biases subtly work their way into decision-making. I believe you agree with this in principle when you mention the Jackie Robinson effect? So, why DO women & "minority" people have to be *better*? Well, because people (and not only white men) come into the situation with a bias that says women and minorities are inferior.

So tying that back into the presentation, when we use naked women to shock, many women would feel that this just reinforces the bias that women are for mating with, not for working with.

Which means you're reinforcing the idea that we have to be better - we have to overcome the fact that we're women.

Truly, if we want to shock, why choose a naked woman's body? As Tracey Ullman asked while in character, where are all the penises? If we stop and think about it, I'm not sure it's too surprising to anyone that many women find naked-women-for-effect causes them to have a visceral aversion.

Don't men ever have actual nightmares where they are, for whatever reason, naked in public?

dave mcclure

nope, you're missing my point.

i'm not "using naked bodies to shock" -- and for the record, please make sure you are quoting reality here: it WAS NOT a naked body, it was a CLOTHED butt... altho i reserve the right to use a naked body in the future.

i was using a "clothed big butt stuck in your face" as a way to demonstrate the psychology of the brain, and how it reacts to body parts, specifically in this case, a big butt.

while it may have been shocking (which is common for me), it was also the entire point of the post which i was demonstrating.

lastly, i'm not saying there's a Jackie Robinson effect because *I* am oppressing anyone... in fact, quite the opposite. i tend to trust oppressed parties more in any profession where they are oppressed, because it's likely they are more competent. however, that has little to do with my post, and more to do with my personal philosophy.

in any case, thanks again for the discussion :)

The comments to this entry are closed.