Slashdot Mirror
Google Hosts Special Demo Day For Female Entrepreneurs (thenewstack.io)
An anonymous reader writes: 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.
Missing important details like how many sandwiches did they make?
Slow news day.
Well at least you held off for a few days this time.
I just want to know when the special "male only" event will be?
No?
It's always been clear why women aren't competitive with men at the 100-meter dash, but it's not clear why women aren't competitive with men at professional poker.
Not trying to flame - not being a Jerk, just pointing out a disconnect at Google HQ.
What if one of those Female Entrepreneurs sold confederate merchandise in her "Bring Back the Dukes of Hazard" store?
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
You have to give people with a handicap a chance to prove themselves. So they have the special/paralympics. Now we have everyone on a level playing field, it's completely fair that the gold medalist is almost never going to set a world record. He just needs to be the best amongst other handicapped individuals. It's not expected because we know it's unfair to judge someone who is handicapped by the same standards as someone who doesn't have a handicap. We can't ask a runner to grow a leg to replace the one they're missing, for example.
So, you see, google understands that women just aren't as capable as men at these things. This is why they make sure they offer support to them by way of reducing the competition so only other handicapped individuals (women) compete against each other. It would be unfair to ask a woman to become as smart as a man, just as it is unfair to ask a quadriplegic to walk. It's just not reasonably possible.
Or, am I missing the point here? I am supposed to get out of this that being a woman is a handicap and we should show some empathy towards them, right?
(Note: I'm being sarcastic. I really do believe women are equal to men and find the idea of woman only awards in the tech industry repugnant and degrading).
Consider Mexico's unique e-commerce challenges ADDRESSED!!!
There's a fellow at work who keeps going on and on about how great the Rust programming language is. He keeps raving about how its community is totally diverse, how it has a code of conduct, how there's a team that goes after people who don't follow the code of conduct, and how it's the most progressive programming language community he has ever been a part of. Yet when I go look at the contributors to Rust, I see one male after another. Why are so many Rust contributors men? If the project is so inclusive, tolerant, and open to everyone then why aren't there more women contributing to Rust?
So now that women have their own safe space we can expect some amazing innovation to follow. But if we don't, I wonder what the next excuse will be?
...to prove that there is no significant difference in the maturity level of Slashdot and 4chan. None.
Yay for sexism passing as 'social justice.'
Bridgit? You do know he's a dude, right? Look's like Google's been fooled.
Try to make me submit, you'll face the cold muzzle of a rifle pointed at you.
Historically, certain groups based on gender and race have faced institutional discrimination that prevents them from pursuing opportunities available to others. When those barriers are removed, it doesn't automatically mean there's equal opportunity. The effects of discrimination on income and education mean that the playing field isn't anywhere close to level. For there to be equal opportunity, you have to bring those who were discriminated against up to the level of everyone else. Affirmative action is a temporary measure to undo the damage from past discrimination so there is equal opportunity.
I've generalized this message because it goes beyond women's issues. Slavery and Jim Crow laws in the US put African-Americans at a tremendous disadvantage where they were denied good education, employment, and so many other opportunities. Eliminating those institutions of racism doesn't mean that the people who were discriminated against for so long magically get the education and jobs that would allow them equal opportunity. Unless efforts are made to undo the effects of racism, the effects will persist for generations. That's what we're seeing in the US right now, where although the barriers that created the inequality no longer exist, there most certainly isn't equal opportunity.
And in the case of STEM fields and entrepreneurship, women don't have equal opportunity. Men aren't targeted with affirmative action in these areas because they aren't starting at a disadvantage. There are certainly areas where affirmative action has gone too far and tilted the playing field in the opposite direction, but that's not the case here. Affirmative action is a temporary measure for the purpose of restoring equal opportunity after discrimination.
"Tech entrepreneurs" of whatever gender are mostly just rich/connected people with an idea for an app and either are personal friends with or hire someone to actually make the beast.
90% of "tech startups" are "apps" of some time or have them as a major part of what they do.
It was different back in the day.
In the US, typically the person with the money wanted to be the "investor" and the "entrepreneur" was the same as the inventor or coder.
Old-school rich people showed off by being able to choose the right person to invest in, nowadays the new-school rich show off by *being* the person at the top of the investment, at least publicly.
Thank you Dave Raggett
More than 450 women from 40 different counties applied for a spot,
"but the real competition was which one was hot enough to have a little fun with and make indebted to us, but not in a position to make us pay for it" said an unnamed executive, while leering at all the pageant contestants
Exactly why do women need to be treated like they don't have the ability to survive it on their own? Someone, please show is the numbers/evidence, I dare you to talk about pay inequality, I triple dog dare you! I dare you to talk about any of the crap that used to be the problem 60 years ago! This nonsense REALLY needs to stop. the coddling needs to stop, the protecting needs to stop. women entrepreneurs are just fine by themselves. If REAL discrimination is occurring, like other crime, it should be dealt with on a case by case basis.
Women clearly can't compete with men in a competition of startup ideas, so I think that having a special woman-only event is only fair. After all, you wouldn't force kids from the special olympics with actual olympians. You'd give them their own olympics.
where niggas congregate and show off their inventions to google?
...isn't this more than a little patronizing?
More special privileges for women -- as if they didn't have enough already -- and more discrimination against men. I'm getting really, really tired of this, especially when I see my son excluded from one educational opportunity after another solely because of his sex.
Try to make me submit, you'll face the cold muzzle of a rifle pointed at you.
Someone's Internet bravado just kicked into overdrive...
I don't think men and women are ever meant to see eye to eye. Each sex finds the other intoxicating and infuriating in equal amount. However I do think this perpetual turbulence must help us thrive as a species somehow.
Or maybe we're just the Gods' reality show, and the producers made us this way to "stir up some trouble", and make it more interesting. :-)
Yes, "Exempt" sounds GREEEEAT. I thought it when I first heard it too, like you have some sort of Presidential Immunity to be a bad ass. But it only means you don't get paid overtime, even when you work overtime. Most IT people are "Exempt". http://topics.hrhero.com/exemp...
In my opinion more women hate women, than men. You should be addressing misogynist women of slashdot.
You know, for that 'special time' that the lady programmers need?
True headline
A nerd usually has the physical power of a girl, does not get any of the advantages of being an alpha man, has all the societal disadvantages of being a man, and none of the societal advantages of being a woman. Most of them have been physically and mentally bullied in ways that would be totally unacceptable if the victim had been a girl.
So, when they hear from stupid rich girls that they are somehow oppressed in this society, and that as compensation they should get lots of free benefits just for their sex, and that men should be punished and discriminated in jobs just for being men, they can get very angry.
Men are expected to work hard to get money for them and their wives, even if their wife does not work. Yet not a single woman, even the most feminist one, will ever support a man who does not work. I've seen plenty of studies and they all show total opposition to the idea. In most countries, after a divorce is the man the one that is forced to pay a monthly salary to his ex-wife or go to jail, even if the ex-wife has a job and the man does not (which was in every case the reason behind the divorce, always initiated by the woman).
Special Demo Day for LGBT Entrepreneurs ...
Special Demo Day for Muslim Entrepreneurs
Special Demo Day for Brown Entrepreneurs
Special Demo Day for Yellow Entrepreneurs
Special Demo Day for Black Entrepreneurs
So, in this case, men are not actually being hurt in any way....I'm looking forward to the tortured logic that tires to claim it is though.
No tortured logic required, just a reversal of roles. Suppose the event had been organized such that women were excluded? This would be regarded by almost everyone to be sexist discrimination that denied women a fair opportunity to demonstrate their talents to Google and thus it harms them. If this is true for women if then, by symmetry it applies to men when they are excluded. To argue otherwise would be to claim the sexism does not harm those it is biased against.
There may be a more subtle bias elsewhere which harms women but surely the society we want to strive for is where nobody's chances of success are harmed by their gender not one where we strive to harm everyone equally? The solution to sexism is to identify it and fix it not to be equally sexist in reverse. As the old saying goes "two wrongs do not make a right".
Even Google hosts! The only way, which does not only block ads, but malware and government spying!
The men are under 5'10" tall.
KiChing, a startup that's actively addressing Mexico's unique e-commerce challenges
Really? They named a company intended for Mexican markets something that basically translates into KiFuc?!
It isn't just your opinion, it's fact. Women slut shame other women far far far far far more than men slut shame women. Women stab each other in the back far more often than men do.
Claiming something is wrong just because it includes discriminating behavior is not a valid argument by itself, as it is quite intellectually dishonest. Unless prejudice against men is found (aka, they aren't being included because they are deemed inferior)...
I disagree. Discrimination based on gender, unless our different biology is relevant, is wrong because it automatically implies prejudice. Look up the definition: prejudice is "an unfair and unreasonable opinion or feeling, especially when formed without enough thought or knowledge". Hence this example is prejudicial against men since they are being rejected out of hand without and knowledge of who they are based solely on the unreasonable criteria that they are men.
I never said that all discrimination is bad, clearly we should discriminate based on ability, but I will claim that discrimination based on gender, race, religion etc. is wrong unless that gender, race etc. is directly relevant e.g. women do not need prostate exams. This is because such discrimination automatically implies inappropriate prejudice either for or against some group. Indeed I would claim that it is you who is being intellectually dishonest because you are trying to use sophistry, such as re-defining the meaning of prejudice, to escape the real issue which is simply whether discrimination based purely on gender can every be justified.