Ah I love these moments when I know that I am writing a risky post and I will very likely be downvoted, but here it comes!<p>How is this fair? Doesn't it qualify as "sexism"? You know the thing that was heavily debated on HN in the last weeks when some people were treated based on their gender? "I mean these people are put forward because they are %s, and if they were not %s they would not even qualify to a full page article. Based on that story %s seem to have an easier time because of their gender" % ( "women", "women", "women"). Sorry for the Pythonic syntax but if you saw "men" instead of "women" you'd have totally different stories and the big S word: sexism.<p>Plus, the ideas might be good for business but it's very very "girly". If I were a girl I would certainly feel kind of weird that out of the 4 ideas 1 is directed towards women, 2 are directly relevant to "standard" feminine tastes: clothing. Also the journalist is a woman... I want to see women promising us Big Data analysis or the new portal around cars, not some stuff that reinforce stereotypes!<p>I am sorry but I will say that sexism is gone when EVERY trace of it will have disappeared, and there won't be any "X women that succeed and they are awesome" but the title will be "Z ideas that will help you buy clothes" with guys and girls in the same article.
Disclaimer: I am a guy.<p>I apologize if this comes off as a strange sentiment, but I find stories like this pretty condescending. It's almost like reading a story about some achievement by a kid with special needs and I need to stand up and cheer for these women. These women are amazing for whatever they have done, regardless of gender.
The fact that these businesses are run by women is only tangentially relevant.<p>Shoptiques is a particularly interesting business. It creates value where none really existed before. Boutiques can't establish a real web presence, and mid market girls don't have access to NY/LA/London boutiques. This is an online business that creates value from thin air. Execution is the key, and the execs seem to be totally on track.<p>99 dresses is a potential home run but like all marketplace businesses it is tough. My favorite thing is that they are so low class. I love the idea that chicks are swapping dresses from F21. It is just so real and honest. I want them to be a major success just to spite the people behind renttherunway.<p>The daily muse looks like a newspaper to me, so I don't get the business. Hireart seems like a gimmick.<p>Women or no women, I'll be an ass and say what I think.
How did the author overlook the female construction engineer of PlanGrid (one of my favorite YC startups this batch), or the domain expert (pharmacist) at MedMonk (which is one of the more likely to save lives of the YC batch)?
<i>Blah blah gender blah blah sexism</i>, etc., etc. We may have reached the Seymour Skinner point here at HN: "I don't have any opinions anymore. All I know is that no one is better than anyone else and everyone is the best at everything." (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls_Just_Want_to_Have_Sums" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls_Just_Want_to_Have_Sums</a>)
Sexism exists in technology and especially the startup world. I've seen it over-and-over again in my experience.<p>My wife and I co-founded a successful web company together. We have pretty much the exact same background: Engineering grads from same program at the same school, same age within 10 days of each other, we both worked in SV as software engineers before launching our startup. We even both played competitive soccer.<p>However, over the years it is has been a common occurrence that with an introduction to a new tech/startup person, there's an assumption that I'm the technical person. I get spoken to in that way, and my wife is assumed to be non-(or less)-technical than I am. In one such a meeting, we were asked who is the CEO (from a veteran entrepreneur), she responded that she was, and the guy chuckled. We asked him why what was so funny about that? He mumbled and tripped over his words without explanation.<p>When we work together, thoughts of gender don't even come to mind. We're too damn busy trying to build something that someone gives a sh<i></i> about.
Hirealert is interesting independently of the founding team but once they get any real traction they've got a target a mile wide on them for implicit discrimination lawsuits in the USA for any videos that make it possible to distinguish ethnicity. This effects voice explanations as well.<p>Also this<p><i>We really try to work with data to understand which questions work the best. You can think about it like designing the SATs for different jobs</i><p>is for all practical purposes illegal in the USA due to Griggs v. Duke Power Company[0] and the misbegotten offspring of legal reasoning uncontaminated by any knowledge of statistics that is the 80% rule[1].<p>But who knows they might survive and thrive and hiring is a ridiculously huge market. Good luck to them.<p>[0]<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Company" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Company</a><p>[1]<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_impact#The_80.25_rule" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_impact#The_80.25_rule</a>
Funding female founders arises from the same basic logic of funding minority founders: it's just good business.<p>For every demographic that you consciously or unconsciously ignore as an investor or business owner, you're depriving yourself of all the potential business that demographic attracts.