"It's hard to argue I'm biased against female founders when I have a female cofounder myself."
No matter how the rest of the essay is, this honestly doesn't mean jack and insults the intelligence of his critics, no matter how off-the-mark they were. He goes on to note other, more meaningful statistics, which is great, but this sentence alone is kind of laughable.
edit: the downvote was predictable, although still disappointing. I was simply pointing out that picking your wife as a cofounder should not be used as proof that you are not biased against women. Honestly, PG's argument would be stronger as a whole if he removed that line from the essay.
She was an investment banker, I believe (or some equivalent) at the time YC was formed. I seriously doubt PG would take on a cofounder that couldn't pull her weight, even if he were in love with her.
A racist is less likely to have black friends than a non-racist. I'd suggest that a racist is even less likely to have black co-founders than a non-racist.
edited to add: The reason the "look at my black friends" argument is mocked is that in many cases the friends referred to are not friends in the true sense of the word. There's no such distinction possible when talking about a co-founder. One either is or is not a co-founder.
This is a dangerous oversimplification of what "racist" (or any negative bias) means. There are many people who have no problem associating with individuals of [insert class here], but would be less likely to hire them, etc. Racism, like everything else, is a spectrum, and it's critical not to characterize it by its most extreme elements.
How can I simplify the meaning of something I haven't attempted to define? How can I mischaracterise the nature of something I haven't attempted characterize?
One can overlook one's own prejudice with regards to a few friends from categories which their disregard, having gotten to know them as /people/, and still regard strangers in those categories with disdain.
This is taking the whole paragraph out of context. Paul mentions the 3 partners out of 12 in YC and compares it to the rest of the VC industry. I would say its a fair statement. This is a bit of nitpicking here.
I don't know Paul but I do know that based on this article he's laying out the problem based on what he knows which is start ups. I appreciate him doing this as I get a better insight to the problem from someone that has firsthand, "in the field" knowledge. I also got some great takeaway action items that I can apply for my own kids. So, thanks for that.
In the same vein the argument later that investors aren't going to be biased against women because they're interested in money is a dud. Most businessmen are motivated by money, but there's more than one instance of businesses who discriminated in the past.
The fact that investors make or lose money based on their beliefs does provide one source of pressure to be rational, but it's not a guarantee.
If you accuse someone of a specific business misbehavior, and that person's actual behavior in the conduct of his business bucks that, it's a relevant statement. It's not Archie Bunker saying "I don't have a problem with those people".
In my professional life, of the the managers working for me was formally accused of racist conduct by an employee he supervised. The core argument was that he was unpleasant and unfair to him based on his race. A major part of his defense was his family (his wife happened to be of the same race), his children, and the extensive work that he did in that community mentoring people.
Bias is a state of mind. Facts/statistics alone do not tell the story.
No matter how the rest of the essay is, this honestly doesn't mean jack and insults the intelligence of his critics, no matter how off-the-mark they were. He goes on to note other, more meaningful statistics, which is great, but this sentence alone is kind of laughable.