SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Wednesday Google hosted a special edition of their annual "Demo Day" event featuring 11 early-stage startup companies founded by women from eight different countries. More than 450 women from 40 different counties applied for a spot, and the winner of the competition was Bridgit, a fast-growing Canadian company which provides a mobile communications platform for construction teams. Online voters also awarded the "Game Changer" title to KiChing, a startup that's actively addressing Mexico's unique e-commerce challenges. But all of the startups at Wednesday's event were already actively raising series-A funding, and "We aim to help connect them to mentors, access to capital, and shine a spotlight on their efforts," said Mary Grove, the director of Google for Entrepreneurs, addressing the Demo Day audience in San Francisco.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 14 2015, @09:33PM
> So I skimmed through the video... and watched one of the advertised women founders
> hand the mic off to a male co-founder as soon as questions were to be answered
Oh you did now, did you?
Well, I just skimmed the video and here's what I saw:
Presentation #1 Q&A @49:30
- woman answers all questions, man just stands next to her
Presentation #2 Q&A @57:50
- woman answers 2 questions
- man answers 2 questions
Presentation #3 Q&A @1:10:00
- no man on stage
Presentation #4 Q&A @1:13:00
- no man on stage
Presentation #5 Q&A @1:30:30
- no man on stage
Presentation #6 Q&A @1:38:00
- no man on stage
Presentation #7 Q&A @1:45:00
- no man on stage
Presentation #8 Q&A @1:53:00
- no man on stage
Presentation #9 Q&A @2:01:00
- man answers all questions, woman chimes in on one
Presentation #10 Q&A @2:09:20
- woman answers 1 question
- man answers 4 questions, woman chimes in on two
Presentation #11 Q&A @2:20:00
- no man on stage
- no real questions
So, based on exactly zero cases where the woman has no participation in the Q&A you conclude this was a "nice little show."
You only saw what you wanted to see.
It's always disappointing when someone lives down to a stereotype.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 15 2015, @03:57AM
The saddest thing is that in attempting to dismiss the validity of this event, Archon used the exact kind of sexist stereotyping that caused people to do a woman-focused event in the first place.
His 100% contrafactual post, the up-mods (without even a single down-mod or even a disagree so far) along with the enthusiastic support of posters like darkfeline and runaway1956 should be enough to convince even the most die-hard self-styled empiricist that sexism is endemic in our community. But what is certain to happen again (because it has happened so many times before) is that instead of turning that critical gaze inwards, he and his buddies will just do it all over again the next time soylent runs a story that makes them feel small. It will simultaneously comfort them and show everybody else that they are the problem they deny even exists.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 15 2015, @03:43PM
Someone accuses Google of poorly vetting their attendees and not actually caring about women entrepreneurs and just trying to appease college-age brats.
You accuse that person of sexism.
Which side of this is the MRAs? I'm having a hard time figuring it out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 15 2015, @04:44PM
Someone accuses Google of poorly vetting their attendees and not actually caring about women entrepreneurs and just trying to appease college-age brats.
He literally said that the women there had no "tangible vision or leadership traits." That's the way bigotry works - apply a negative stereotype in order to rationalize prejudicial beliefs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 15 2015, @04:18AM
Wouldn't the GP be talking about presentation 9?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 15 2015, @04:51AM
You mean the one where the woman responded to one of the questions too?
Ok, let's be charitable and give that one to him and see where it takes us. Lets be even more charitable and assume that it really was a case of hypocritical sexist manipulation rather than cooperation between partners - an assumption that wouldn't even occur to anyone if they were both the same gender.
What meaning can you draw from that 1 case versus the other 8 where women did 100% of the talking and the 2 where they still did 100% of the presentation and 30-50% of the Q&A? Is there some sort of "one drop" rule where because a single example doesn't conform to archon's arbitrary and one-sided standard that makes the entire event a sham?
Would that really be an intellectually honest conclusion? No. Of course not.