From the same outfit that brought you that weird crowdfunding campaign to send women from New York over to woman-starved Silicon Valley: https://www.tilt.com/campaigns/working-on-it
I actually think this is an interesting example of YC's investments, but not for the reason you seem to suggest.
YC's public persona is all about "hyper-growth" and building "very large" companies[1]. But if you go through the list of companies it has funded, a good number would have a very difficult time making a prima facie case that they fit the profile of a business that can achieve significant growth and scale. Dating Ring is the perfect example of that.
There are numerous challenges associated with breaking into the online dating space generally. First, the costs of customer acquisition are typically quite high because there's so much competition. That makes it very difficult for new services to gain traction without significant investment in advertising. Second, there's an additional level of churn built in to this market because when a dating service works, it loses customers. That produces a constant need for investment in the aforementioned user acquisition which is so costly.
More specifically, Dating Ring seems to be positioned in no man's land (no pun intended). It can't compete with the quantity and immediate gratification of online services that cost nothing or roughly the same, and it can't compete with the quality and exclusivity of matchmaking services which generally have costs signaling much higher value.
If the OP's comment is true, Dating Ring would ironically appear to be offering the worst of both worlds by trying to package users from the former as part of a service masquerading as the latter. Even with adjustments to its model, the odds that this company ever achieves "hyper-growth" or becomes a very large business are next to nil.
Nothing about that campaign itself was sexist. But mix women and dating, and you get a ton of outcry from the media that the women are prostitutes. As a feminist company, that wasn't fun for us to be associated with, but there was little we could do about that. The trip was mostly a joke, and also because we honestly thought a few people may end up having a good time. And one woman ended up falling in love and is now moving to SF.
So, I'd hold off on insulting YC based on some publicity we've received. And .. all press is good press for growth for an early stage startup.
Given that 'feminist' and 'feminism' are used by many people to mean many different things, it would be nice to specify what being a feminist company means.
Is it just a company run by people who self-identify as feminists, maybe one that only hires other people who self-identify as feminists? If so, how do you enforce this? Or is the company's feminism defined by specific policies that are based in a specific meaning of 'feminism', and if so, what are they?
I feel you are being disingenuous in your disagreement - that you're deliberately trying to be combative as opposed to engaging in honest discussion.
Clearly, goals can belong in several umbrella categories at the same time. Most people would agree that "not harassing women" falls under "not being a bad person." But, at the same time, it is also a major goal of most feminists.
> Given that 'feminist' and 'feminism' are used by many people to mean many different things, it would be nice to specify what being a feminist company means.
feminism = social political and economical equality between women and men. A company culture with feminist values means equal maternity and paternity policies, thoughtful consideration for hiring 50/50 men and women, providing health care that covers birth control, etc. Just thinking about equality in every business decision.
> As a feminist company, that wasn't fun for us to be associated with, but there was little we could do about that.
I don't see how your company could describe itself and feminist while also making a campaign that relies on some of the structural sexism of the Valley and tech. How did that campaign challenge the existing power structures and stereotypes/mythology of tech?
So what was the goal then? It seemed like a legit campaign that was raising actual money. How does one reconcile their company as feminist with how that campaigned operated?
The goal was free marketing via the press who zeroed in on what appeared to be an ongoing SV story - Bubble 2.0 + gender imbalance + hapless engineer stereotypes.
And by any measure, it was outrageously successful.
> How does one reconcile their company as feminist with how that campaigned operated?
By accepting those women as adults who are free and intelligent enough to make decisions that may not necessarily line up with the common branch of feminism popularized by the media.
You don't have to spend every waking moment of your life, nor every resource or effort of an organization you belong to, to prove that you're worthy of associating with an ideal like feminism. If they identify with the feminist cause and support it, they don't need to prove it to you or justify how their campaign is or isn't feminist. It wasn't intended to be a feminist campaign, and it doesn't invalidate the rest of who they are or what they identify with.
I'm not saying that they have to constantly spend time justifying themselves, but it is important to look critically at the work a company does when it claims to be feminist. In regards to the tilt campaign, I don't see how that campaign challenges the status quo and pushes for women's rights. I do see how it could be viewed as promoting or exploiting the mythology of male culture the Valley to raise money, which to some may be anti-feminist in nature.
> If they identify with the feminist cause and support it, they don't need to prove it to you or justify how their campaign is or isn't feminist.
We've seen that many times organizations that claim feminism or feminist principles often don't act in a way that is supporting of women, so being critical is fully warranted when an organization says one thing but does something that seems to do nothing but perpetuate existing stereotypes and problems. Moreover, they made the claim, not me, so asking "why is what you are doing feminist" is important.
I actually think this is an interesting example of YC's investments, but not for the reason you seem to suggest.
YC's public persona is all about "hyper-growth" and building "very large" companies[1]. But if you go through the list of companies it has funded, a good number would have a very difficult time making a prima facie case that they fit the profile of a business that can achieve significant growth and scale. Dating Ring is the perfect example of that.
There are numerous challenges associated with breaking into the online dating space generally. First, the costs of customer acquisition are typically quite high because there's so much competition. That makes it very difficult for new services to gain traction without significant investment in advertising. Second, there's an additional level of churn built in to this market because when a dating service works, it loses customers. That produces a constant need for investment in the aforementioned user acquisition which is so costly.
More specifically, Dating Ring seems to be positioned in no man's land (no pun intended). It can't compete with the quantity and immediate gratification of online services that cost nothing or roughly the same, and it can't compete with the quality and exclusivity of matchmaking services which generally have costs signaling much higher value.
If the OP's comment is true, Dating Ring would ironically appear to be offering the worst of both worlds by trying to package users from the former as part of a service masquerading as the latter. Even with adjustments to its model, the odds that this company ever achieves "hyper-growth" or becomes a very large business are next to nil.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBYhVcO4WgI