
XX Combinator - ssclafani
http://terezan.tumblr.com/post/816358389/xx-combinator
======
kaens
I'm sympathetic to a cause here, but I can't help but think that things like
this might do more to promote sexism than not.

I think the idea that women are somehow less capable of doing the "3-months in
Silicon Valley" is harmful. I think that the (not directly) implied idea that
it would be easier for men (men with families even) to do the startup dance on
a string budget is harmful.

I think the idea that women just don't mature into people who are ready to
tackle a startup until their 40s is harmful. I think that the idea that men
are much more ready to tackle a startup in their 20s is harmful.

This whole article smacks of the idea that there is something _fundamentally_
different about men and women and their capabilities at different points in
their adult life. I think this idea is harmful.

I think these things are harmful, because I'd like to see the eradication of
gender inequality as a social norm.

I suspect that while said differences may exist at this point in time, that
they are cultural rather than physical in nature, and that if the goal is
social equality, things like this do little more than reinforce cultural
stereotypes about women and men.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very aware of the skew towards males in the tech
world. There are a lot of reasons for that, almost all -- if not all -- of
them cultural.

I assume that while only 7 founders have been female, that this isn't
happening with 50% of applicants being female.

Perhaps doing a Y-Combinator style seed-funding ramen-profitable thing is only
really appealing to _people_ who are young. Perhaps we could use something
like that for _people_ who are older and have families and can't do the "drop
everything for a few months in pursuit of this idea".

Perhaps.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
Damn, you started out strong and then things fell apart a bit. That's what I
get for voting without reading all the way through.

 _This whole article smacks of the idea that there is something fundamentally
different about men and women and their capabilities at different points in
their adult life_

Men and women _are_ fundamentally different, and research from a wide variety
of fields continues to support that. I find it ridiculous to believe that even
though evolution has so completely obviously shaped our bodies differently,
the male and female minds are the same, despite mounds of evidence to the
contrary, both scientific and experiential. A researcher would be mocked for
making the claim that men and women have the exact same _body_ , but since the
mind is murkier and not as well understood, it's fine to claim that they're
the same. This seems analogous to religious claims of miraculous healing,
which always seem to affect something like cancer or headaches or something we
can't see or touch. They never restore lost limbs or raise the dead. It's
always in intangible areas we don't fully understand, and it seems for now
that the belief that men and women aren't fundamentally different in their
mental and psychological processes can enjoy the same safe haven.

Sorry for the rant, but it's always just struck me as the perfect example of
starting with your conclusion (driven by political correctness), and then
trying in vain to make the evidence fit the theory. I don't see how any honest
researcher could just follow the evidence and determine that men and women are
"fundamentally" the same.

Now, I agree that the eradication of gender inequality (in the sense of value)
as a social norm is a worthy goal, but starting from the foundation of
falsehood is the wrong approach.

~~~
kaens
Could you point me at some studies that suggest that there are _intrinsic_
things about men and women that would make it more likely for women to not be
capable of participating in a startup in their 20s?

I don't claim that the male and female mind are the same. I suspect that the
differences between them have more to do with culture and pattern-recognition
than biology, even though there is some overlap there. I'm also not anything
more than an armchair neuroscientist, so if you'd like to point me at this
"mounds of evidence to the contrary", please go ahead. (Edit: This sentence
sounds a bit more snarky than I intended it to)

As far as I know, we're still in a big grey area as far as how much evidence
points to the majority of someone's _mind_ being nature, and how much nurture,
and how those interact. I'm working with the assumption that people's mindsets
are almost entirely a blank slate at (or a bit before) birth, and that the
vast majority of what they think about the world and all the stuff that comes
with that is created via pattern-recognition over the course of their lives,
with patterns they're exposed to frequently when young being more strongly
ingrained than others. Am I wrong here?

That is, I'm saying that I think that if you took a baby female, and raised it
in an environment where the only exposure she had to what a "female" was and
how a "female" differs from a "male" were manufactured (reversed even), that
she would have _those_ ideas about being a female instead of the ones in
common usage.

My conclusion isn't driven by political correctness either, although I can see
how you would make that assumption. I don't give a shit about political
correctness.

~~~
todayiamme
Look I am intersexed and I have dealt with such stuff all of my life. The one
thing I have learnt is that we aren't blank slates, but we aren't mentally
engineered either. It is true that environment plays a huge role in the
development of a child, but please understand this.

Gender is something that is innate to your mind. Be it through proprioception
or something more complex than that. It is etched in you in the womb and the
way it expresses itself is something that is acquired in tandem with the
environment. Now understand this too, gender is a _spectrum_. What most talks
center around are the peaks of the two bell curves, but there are lots of
folks on either sides. There are kind, sensitive men and abusive, viscous
women. The truth is just like skin color gender isn't exactly something to go
on when dealing with another human being. Some people tend to conform, but a
lot of folks don't and those are the interesting ones.

I feel like laughing my head off each time I read such things. It is true that
it sucks to be a woman, but it sucks to be a man too. I will say this again
and again, when you see the spaces society creates as an outsider then you
begin to understand that things aren't absolute. I am sub-human to most
people, and my right to access a lot of spaces that most readers of this
thread take for granted is fought out in courts around the world. To most
people I am a freak, but they don't understand. They've been taught to see a
world that can fit in neat boxes, only that nature doesn't really care. [edit:
This sounds really mean and rude when I read it again before going to sleep.
To any reader I assure you this was not my intention. I am sorry if I came
across like that to you.]

What I am trying to say is that don't create women only spaces, or LGBTI
friendly spaces, or anything like that. Create human friendly spaces. Embrace
and accept the differences in others and only then can you see that the world
is far more complex than any label we can slap on top of it.

[edit: forgot grammar and spell check. Sorry.]

~~~
kaens
I'm on the same page regarding gender and the need for an effort for "human
friendly spaces". I've been phrasing things in a binary-gender manner because
gender being a spectrum is a bit tangential and distracting to the point here,
and is something that a much lower percentage of the population seems to have
waken up to.

FWIW, I've spent a fair amount of time explaining that it doesn't just suck to
be a woman, or a man, or a whatever to people. I think it's very hard for
people to see how much assumptions about the way people are supposed to act
based on their appearances or physical features really affect peoples day-to-
day lives. Whether that's avoidable or not is another discussion.

Anyhow, I wish you luck.

~~~
todayiamme
Interesting. I really wish that more people like you existed in this world.

Can I ask you something? How did you get interested in this? If you don't mind
can you please drop me a line at yesthisisananonymousid [at] google mail?

Thank you.

[edit: This might sound weird to you, but I would really love to talk to you.
All of my life I have to fake being a boy for the benefit of my parents. I
have to talk differently, walk differently, gesture differently, adjust my
posture differently, look at things differently. The lines were drawn in my
childhood; I was either a boy or it was the streets for me. Of course, I doubt
it that my parents would have acted on that threat, but growing up with such
stuff changed me. It's like someone stole my childhood from me. I don't know
what it is like to have a normal life anymore. It's something really profound
to meet someone who just gets it without saying. Please do indulge me with
that.

Oh and my parents aren't monsters they just followed the status quo. I love
them and I shall continue to love them no matter what.]

~~~
kaens
I'd be glad to. I'll email you either tonight or tomorrow, probably tonight.

------
glhaynes
Being a techie and the father of a daughter, I'm sympathetic to the cause. But
stuff like

 _It would be scheduled and located so that women with families could actively
do it. No “3-months in Silicon Valley”._

always rubs me the wrong way, whether it "should" or not. I'm a man with a
family — in a "coparenting relationship" (kids spend a week with me then a
week with mom, repeat) — and am exactly as likely to be able to move to
Silicon Valley for a few months as a woman in the same situation would be
(i.e. it's impossible).

Not that our field doesn't need more diversity; Lord knows it does.

EDIT: I want to add that I'm not in any way disparaging this project and I
wish it the very best. Just wanted to throw in another perspective. As a
straight white male born in the USA I've done quite well in the birth lottery,
through no special work or talent of my own. But I think it's important and
valuable (for all participants) as we move to a relationship/parenting model
of each-couple-works-it-out-for-themselves shared responsibility that we
recognize the implications and adapt appropriately. Easier said than done.

~~~
dieterrams
Yeah, if that's an accommodation worth making for women with families, it
surely is for men, too, given that they're increasingly sharing parenting
responsibilities.

~~~
mrtron
Of course - which is why I would see it makes sense for differentiating
between people with children.

It is somehow of more consequence that a mother misses 3 months of a child's
life than a father?

------
btilly
What I read is this, "I want a Y-combinator, except where I live, aimed at my
gender and with a schedule I can accept. Oh, and please supply the tech talent
I need. If things work out I can reward the coders with salary and possibly a
CTO position down the road."

Need I explain what is wrong with that picture?

If you don't see the problems, you might start by reading
[http://blog.wepay.com/2010/03/5-things-i-%E2%80%9Cknew%E2%80...](http://blog.wepay.com/2010/03/5-things-i-%E2%80%9Cknew%E2%80%9D-or-
should-have-known-before-starting-a-company-but-didnt-fully-understand-until-
now/) and seeing how many critical pieces don't work. Starting with the whole
supply/demand issue around technical and non-technical co-founders.

~~~
Alex3917
I disagree, I think it's a perfectly legitimate request. I know Tereza
personally, and I also went through YC, so trust me when I say that she is
definitely more talented than the average YC founder. That being said, she
would still benefit greatly from having some additional resources, a
community, and a push in the right direction, but the resources and community
that YC provides don't quite fit her needs.

Don't get me wrong, moving out to silicon valley and eating ramen for three
months is a lot of fun. But at the end of the day, YC is still kind of an
existential solution to a monetary problem. Which is great, and it's the best
thing for a lot of people including me, but there are other people with other
needs who are just as capable of being successful given the right environment
for them.

~~~
btilly
I am not saying anything against Tereza personally, and she may be incredibly
talented. But every single thing I said in my summary can be backed up with
quotes from her article. Here is the summary I gave, with quotes from Tereza
interspersed.

"I want a Y-combinator..." - _I want a Y Combinator..._

"...except where I live..." - _I’d love to New York be home to the world’s
first XX Combinator, and I’d love to be in it._

"...aimed at my gender..." - _I want a Y Combinator for women. Let’s call it
the XX Combinator._

"...and with a schedule I can accept." - _It would be scheduled and located so
that women with families could actively do it._

"Oh, and please supply the tech talent I need." - _Benevolent hackers would
work side-by-side with them to build it..._

"If things work out I can reward the coders with salary and possibly a CTO
position down the road." - _...for equity and possibly paid salaries by
sponsors and can convert into CTO positions._

There is no part of that list which is likely to happen any time soon.
Y-combinator itself found out the hard way that it is easier to get startups
going in Silicon Valley. People who are investing money generally care more
about return on investment than targeting women. Startups naturally don't stay
within convenient schedules. The rate-limiting ingredient to starting tech
startups is available good tech talent, so there is no supply of "benevolent
hackers", particularly not ones who are willing to work the necessary hours
with a random person they were partnered with. And given the amount of work it
takes, plus the supply/demand issue, the reward the tech people need cannot be
an afterthought "if things work out".

Oh, and I disagree with the claim that YC is just an existential solution to a
monetary problem. If you're young, single, and capable, it isn't hard to save
more money than YC offers. But that won't get you, for instance, the feedback
and networking benefits that YC gives.

------
catone
If 7 female founder is reflective of the Y Combinator applicant pool, and the
only thing YC is doing to structurally to "keep women out" is to favor
founders who have coding skills, then the issue appears to be that there
aren't enough competent female coders.

Rather than a band-aid solution (e.g., creating a separate model of startup
incubator that plays the types of jobs women currently do), if we want true
gender equality in the tech space we should hit at the root: getting more
women interested in tech. So instead of "XX Combinator," how about more
programs designed to get young girls interested in science, math, coding, and
entrepreneurism -- the supposed ingredients of a successful YC applicant.

That is, it seems to me that funding a whole bunch of startups run by people
who may not be technically qualified to succeed simply because they're women
isn't a great idea. Instead, the better solution is to devise ways to get more
women interested in the things necessary to succeed (in this case coding and
design skills+) and help them develop those skills.

+If you believe the apparent YC philosophy that technically adept founders are
better positioned to succeed.

~~~
kaens
I think that what needs to be addressed is the cultural idea that math and
programming and "science stuff" is a _male_ thing.

On a more abstract level, I think what needs to be addressed is the cultural
idea that $FOO or $BAR are a $GENDER thing, especially considering what we're
discovering about gender and sexuality. There's plenty of examples of women
being pressured to not do X and men being pressured to not do Y because X or Y
fall out of what are considered to be normal social behavior for their
respective gender or sex.

How to address it? I don't know exactly, other than stressing the point, and
making a point of not performing that type of implied discrimination yourself.

I'm a big fan of meritocracy in this regards -- if I'm looking for coders (or
dancers, or drivers, or artists, or bakers, or whatever), I care about what
they can and have accomplished, not what they look like or what their sex is.
If I ever start my own company, I very well might make the application process
(as) entirely anonymous (as possible) to enforce this.

------
mrtron
I really don't think that equality in genders means that 50% of YC applicants
(or any particular career choice) should be women (or men).

"I want a Y Combinator for women" is an incredibly ignorant comment. First, it
suggests that YC somehow is not suited to women which is insulting to both
parties. Secondly it is suggesting that a woman only YC is a step forward - I
see it as a leap backwards.

And then she goes to speak for women everywhere with statements like

"Y Combinator participants are for the most part very young — in their early
20’s. This is not when women would be most inclined. Women who start
businesses like to know what they’re doing, and be trained and experienced in
it.".

That is so ridiculous I feel ignorant for responding to this post.

------
ryanelkins
I don't think any of the reasons mentioned here for _keeping women out_ is
gender specific. It's more hacker vs "idea person" or how I prefer to think of
it, those who can code vs those who can't code.

This is more about "Y Combinator for non coders" than it is about "Y
Combinator for women". This is something I see a lot of - people with some
experience that want to start a tech startup but want to hire out some
developers to build it for them. Not that there is something inherently wrong
with that - there just isn't anything gender specific about it either.

The problem, as the author mentioned, is primarily that the number of women
taking up coding is disproportionate to the number of men that take up coding.
Y Combinator's heavily male population is a reflection of the problem, not a
cause.

~~~
natgordon
The 35-year old cut-off could be considered gender-specific.

I'm a 30-year old female entrepreneur and software developer. I would love to
do Y-combinator or other incubator program. I also want to start a family. If
I wait for years to have kids, there is a statistically higher risk of
infertility. This isn't the case for men. I think the author is correct that
women may be more ready to launch a start-up when they're 40.

~~~
seanalltogether
"I think the author is correct that women may be more ready to launch a start-
up when they're 40" I think this is a valid statement.

However, the argument then becomes, 'Is it a good business strategy to invest
and nurture a pool of 40 year old entrepreneurs?'

~~~
robotsari
That is a good question; but as the life expectency of our population
increases while the prospect of any of us getting social security decreases,
the fact is we may be at a point where retirement doesn't happen until one is
at least 70 or even older. A 45-year old entrepreneur with, let's say, 20
years experience in the field who doesn't plan on retiring until 65 or 70
still has at least 20 years to invest in the company; additionally, think of
what you at 18 or 20 could have learned from an internship with someone like
that. I think our culture is continually redefining what is and isn't "old"; I
for one don't think 40 is truly all that old.

------
chaostheory
Why are entrepreneurs mostly male?

I believe this deserves another look:
<http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm>

TDLR: "For women throughout history (and prehistory), the odds of reproducing
have been pretty good. Later in this talk we will ponder things like, why was
it so rare for a hundred women to get together and build a ship and sail off
to explore unknown regions, whereas men have fairly regularly done such
things? But taking chances like that would be stupid, from the perspective of
a biological organism seeking to reproduce. They might drown or be killed by
savages or catch a disease. For women, the optimal thing to do is go along
with the crowd, be nice, play it safe. The odds are good that men will come
along and offer sex and you’ll be able to have babies. All that matters is
choosing the best offer. We’re descended from women who played it safe.

For men, the outlook was radically different. If you go along with the crowd
and play it safe, the odds are you won’t have children. Most men who ever
lived did not have descendants who are alive today. Their lines were dead
ends. Hence it was necessary to take chances, try new things, be creative,
explore other possibilities."

------
istari
The more I watched the Milan fashion show, the more troubled I became that 0%
of the models on the catwalks were men. I realized that the men in the IT
industry compose a vast, under-served market for high fashion that is being
actively and sexually discriminated against by structural factors.

Factors which we can overcome with wishful thinking.

We need a fashion show. In Silicon Valley. For men. In their thirties and
forties. Who can code. On nights and weekends so as not to disturb their
working hours.

Benevolent designers and fashion models will work with the coders to make this
happen in return for equity and possibly paid salaries by sponsors and can
convert into CFO (Chief Fashion Officer) positions.

------
chrischen
There is already a y combinator for your gender: y combinator. If the problem
is that women don't know how to code, then we should start empowering them to
code, not give them money to start a tech business despite that.

------
friendlyhacker
<http://news.ycombinator.com/x?fnid=W8lZDdBoHf>

------
herdrick
It's worth trying; I hope somebody does.

------
mkramlich
this old debate

memo to the planet: males and females are different

stop thinking, open your eyes and ears and get out in the world. do this for
say 20+ years so you get exposed to a lot of reality, enough to overwhelm your
theories/thinking, then revisit the issue.

one last point: I think universities and colleges are the main vectors for
this "males and females are the same with exact same potential, desires,
talents, predilections -- but mean old Society is oppressing/distorting them"
idea. can't wait to see it die out.

