
A new $100M fund for women founders of color - ss2003
https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/07/theres-a-new-100-million-fund-expressly-for-women-founders-of-color/
======
beardicus
Ugh. Almost every comment on this article is gross. What is wrong with you
all?

Targeted support of a minority population to correct for an unjust imbalance
is a good thing.

~~~
yetanother1980
I detest racism and sexism even when done by well meaning people. If this is a
character flaw then I want more flaws.

I am glad I got a chance to let you know that not everyone agrees with
bigotry.

~~~
dang
You did considerably more than anyone else to turn this thread into a wretched
flamewar. Since it doesn't look like you've done it before with this account,
I'm not going to ban it, but if you do this again we will.

Ideological battle is not welcome here. All your comments in this thread were
ideological battle. And that's just the start of the problems.

It isn't necessary for people to agree on divisive topics. That's by
definition impossible. But it is necessary for people to remain thoughtful and
respectful. That's why the site guidelines say that " _Comments should get
more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive._ "

You used name-calling in the sense the guidelines ask you not to do, for
example weaponizing "racist" and "sexist" and "bigotry" in a way that you must
know perfectly well is divisive and provocative. By "weaponizing" I mean using
words not to communicate information, but to bash something or someone
verbally. That's flamewar.

You reacted everywhere in this reductionist way, breaking the guideline that
asks you to " _respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what
someone says, not a weaker one that 's easier to criticize_." That rule
applies to articles and people in articles as well as to to people here. Why?
Because discussion gets dumb without it.

You crossed into personal attack and incvility in ways that can only inflame
people and shut down meaningful conversation ("By being racist you are...").
You did that even when people responded to you gently and thoughtfully—which,
amazingly, several did. You threw in things like the KKK for gratituous
flamebait. And you extremely overposted to this thread, which spread the
flames everywhere.

There are still plenty of civil, substantive things people can say to each
other when they have strongly different identifications about the issues
touched on by a post like this. But that becomes impossible when even one
person's reactions are so strong that they can't contain themselves, vandalize
the thread, and degrade this community into a ruin that nobody would want to
spend time in. On this occasion, you were that person. Please don't be that
person again. Instead, please (re-)read
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
and use this site as intended from now on.

~~~
yetanother1980
I will always call out discrimination in any context even by well meaning
people. I do hope that arguing against racism and sexism is acceptable on this
forum.

~~~
TheAdamAndChe
Arguing is generally acceptable on this site when there is an actual, logical
argument. You didn't argue anything, just expressed your opinion that it is
bad without explaining yourself.

------
stillsut
There are currently two competing narratives about what is racist: On one
side, it's considered racist to make decisions based on race. On the other
side, it's considered racist to make decisions _without_ considering race, and
the history of power and oppression that comes with it.

One side sees a productive way to _move forward_ by not repeating the mistakes
of the past. The other side sees a way to make the future better by
_correcting_ the mistakes of the past. It's one of the most difficult we face
as both as a society and as individuals: often in literature a character will
be driven to avenge a past injustice and at the height of narrative arc, will
be forced to consider his motivations and the consequences of his goal. The YA
novel _A Long Way Down_ and the movie _Blue Ruin_ both explore this concept
poignantly, without ever giving us easy or generalizable answers.

Because racial politics can be so mentally poisoning, a far more neutral
thought experiment is to consider a fund reserved exclusively for funding
military veterans. That's a kind of situation where almost everyone can see
_both_ sides to the issue: how can you deny their contribution and sacrifices?
And yet how can you fail to see the unintended but inevitable consequences
that creates?

~~~
grosjona
I understand the intent of this fund but I think that it's both racist and
sexist.

Why doesn't someone create a VC fund for people with disabilities instead? Or
maybe a fund for ugly people? Or a fund for socially awkward people? Or a fund
for people who have a lisp? Or a fund for people who have bad posture? Or
simply a fund for the underprivileged? Those would be a lot more fair.

Life isn't fair to everyone. Some people just have to work much harder than
others to get the same results. There is nothing that can be done about this.

Trying to do something about this equates to discrimination based on arbitrary
superficial features.

------
anonthrow2018
I wonder if this applies to Asian women too? Or is it only for
"underrepresented" women founders of color?

~~~
Freak_NL
The 'person of color' moniker was introduced partly because in the US the
adverb 'colored' tended to be used predominantly (if not exclusively) for
black people. 'Person of color' was intended to be more inclusive.

From what I understand, _how_ inclusive that term is depends on who you ask
and what their goal is in the discourse, but usually it includes all non-white
people, where 'white' is used to imply someone of pure 'white' descent
(whatever that means). So someone with a 'person of color' in his ancestry
(not sure if there is a limit in the number of generations one should include)
is a 'person of color' themself.

So Asian women tend to be considered 'women of color', unless that doesn't
suit the narrative of the person employing the term.

~~~
blattimwind
I'm always _fascinated_ by the racial phylogenies created/invented by some
people purporting they are fighting racism.

------
judofyr
Folks, can you please open a dictionary before you start complaining?

> racism: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of
> a different race based on the _belief that one 's own race is superior_.

It’s very clear that this fund is not created in the spirit of claiming women
founders of color are superior to white men.

You can call it “discrimination” or “unfair”; you can argue that it’s not good
long term for either parts; you can claim that such an incentive doesn’t
create the best products/companies. But please, make an argument, don’t just
shout out “racism!!!!”

~~~
jamescostian
Linguistic prescriptivism adds no substance to an argument, it just wastes
time on the fact that different people have different definitions. Try
descriptivism out - instead of telling people what a word means, understand
what they mean when they say a word (ignoring the fact that you disagree with
their usage of that word), and argue against the substance of their message

~~~
judofyr
Substance of their message? I’m sorry, but when people comment nothing more
than “That’s racist”, there’s not much substance. My comment was an attempt at
encouraging people to post actual arguments, and not just shout out their
feelings.

~~~
jamescostian
I agree that when people say "that's racist" there isn't much substance, if
any. I also support this fund and am having trouble finding any real arguments
against it in this whole thread - indeed, a lot of people just say "that's
racist" and move on.

I applaud asking for actual arguments, I just really hate all the arguments
that are about what the words racism, racist, sexism, sexist, etc. mean.

~~~
judofyr
Yeah, and I do see that my comment ends up being yet another comment that's
_not_ about the article. I guess I could've focused less on the "using
'racism' incorrectly" and more on the "come on, what are the _actual_
disadvantages to this fund".

------
anonlady54321
Wow, this comment thread went WAY PAST the intent of "sharing a link" as an
information resource. TechCrunch (yes, TechCrunch) wrote an article about a
venture capital fund available to women of color who want to become
entrepreneurs. Period. No need to evaluate if it's racist or discriminatory.
No need to make "you said" or "you reacted" comments. Read the article, learn
more if the subject matter is of interest to you, and move on.

------
grew-grew-grew
Ironically, in the context of this conversation, I’m both a white male in tech
and also a minority in the city I live in.

If someone set up a white male VC fund I wouldn’t touch it with a ten foot
pole.

I’ve dealt with plenty of racism, on the job and just living my life, but I
understand that being a minority means dealing with (often unconscious)
biases.

Is this ok? No, people should be better.

But I would never take a handout as contentious as this. The message here,
regardless of intention, is that black women cannot compete on merit.

~~~
iovrthoughtthis
> The message here, regardless of intention, is that black women cannot
> compete on merit.

You might infer that if you assume that everyone assesses merits without bias.

I would argue that this is not the case and that black women’s merits are not
assesses without bias.

------
RobertRoberts
When it comes to controversial subjects, I appreciate numbers.

How many women of _all_ races (including white) are even looking for funding?

What if there are 10 white women, 1 black woman and 30 asian women and no
other race at all? (Just as a fake dataset to make a point...)

This kind of targeted funding could abjectly affect perfectly qualified
candidates just on the basis of race alone.

Isn't that the very definition of racism? Even if it's supposed to fix a past
injustice, when does two wrongs make a right?

~~~
gizmo
As it becomes easier for women of color to get funding more will apply for
funding. Very few people want to play a game that seems rigged against them.

The standard in silicon valley (and by its own admission, also the standard of
YC) was that people who looked like Mark Zuckerberg would get funding. Meaning
white, male Harvard/Stanford/MIT undergrads. As a result perfectly qualified
candidates get rejected because they don't fit this picture.

There is no reason to presume that people from certain
races/ethnicities/genders make for better or worse startup founders. However,
when certain demographics get basically never funded, then capable, motivated,
qualified founders don't even bother to apply. Even when there is no actual
discrimination the negative cycle continues. Breaking this cycle is a social
good.

It's like Hollywood. For a long time women of color never got offered leading
roles. Movie Executives just didn't want to take the gamble. But as more and
more movies hit the screen with women of color in leading roles the financial
risk is lessened. Which results in more opportunities for WoC. This was never
about how talented or motivated the actresses were. Hopefully we'll quickly
get to the point where a WoC in a leading role is no longer noteworthy. Same
for startups.

~~~
RobertRoberts
This is why I appreciate data and numbers. Otherwise discussions devolve to
anecdotes, guessing and hyperbole. Sometimes this is enough, but when there's
controversy, data/numbers are ideal place to start.

------
JAdamMoore
Sounds racist AND sexist while managing to also be entirely hypocritical of
the exact behaviors of what they are "fixing."

------
ryanx435
What's stopping people (who don't meet the criteria for this fund) from hiring
a woman of color as their CEO specifically to raise capital from this fund?

~~~
MagnitudeFC
presumably because you'd need to give up a lot of equity to this woman of
color you hire to be the front...

i don't have high hopes for VC funds like this.. seems more like a charitable
grant than venture funding..1

~~~
ThrustVectoring
You don't have to have an exit if you're a bit more creative with how you
extract money out of a corporation you've set up for that purpose. The most
ethical is through getting a solid salary paid out to you. Least is outright
embezzlement - find a front who doesn't actually have your real name, convince
them that the VCs can't know that this is actually your idea so they have to
hide your involvement, and disappear with the cash leaving them holding the
bag.

------
chippy
This will be flag killed, and most people flagging wont read the article.

------
yetanother1980
This is expressly racist and sexist.

~~~
p49k
Is it racist and sexist to use private funds in order to counterbalance what
is clearly a long history of racism and sexism in preferring white males in VC
capital? You might have a point if the gender/racial makeup of founders were
anywhere close to that of the population.

~~~
geomark
I don't think that's an argument that it is not sexist and racist. It is
expressly so. The argument you are making is that it is justified to be
expressly sexist and racist to counterbalance past sexism and racism.

~~~
p49k
I disagree. To say something is sexist or racist would imply that the intent
is to favor these groups due to a belief that they are superior, or due to a
hatred toward the other groups rather than as a strategy to counter the
effects of historical racism/sexism. You could argue they are discriminatory,
though.

~~~
geomark
I guess we must fundamentally disagree. The decision is based on the sex and
race of the founder. That speaks for itself. Justification for it is based on
history. All the other dressing up is just an attempt to avoid being labeled a
racist/sexist.

~~~
p49k
> The decision is based on the sex and race of the founder.

What you just described is the definition of discrimination, not racism or
sexism. These words have meanings and you can look them up. Saying it's racist
and sexist is just a disingenuous way to shore up drama when a more accurate
(but less provocative) term is available.

~~~
geomark
Yes, it is discrimination based on sex and race. I think you are arguing that
what matters is the _feelings_ of the person when they discriminate. The
intent is the same - choose one over the other because of their sex and race.
But if they _feel_ they are righting a past wrong then it is not
sexism/racism, whereas if they are doing it because they dislike one group
then it is sexism/racism. And that is where the fundamental disagreement lies.
I don't subscribe to the _feelings_ argument.

~~~
p49k
It's not about feelings; it's about intent. The intent is not at all the same,
and you know it. There's a huge difference between discrimination designed to
suppress a group of people, and discrimination designed to give disadvantaged
people a chance that they should have been given in the first place. The
former describes 200+ years of American history, and the latter describes a
handful of efforts in recent history.

------
scarface74
VC's always talk about "pattern matching" meaning they look for founders that
look like other successful founders - that immediately biases them toward
young White men.

