If more YC partners were female, it could result in more women applicants because it might provide encouragement to potential female startup founders who are on the fence that successful entrepreneurship in a male-dominated startup environment is achievable--and ultimately worth striving for. Social science studies point to a gap between similarly-qualified men and women on their respective levels of self-confidence and risk tolerance. The implication of this gap is that while the gender makeup of YC partners wouldn't affect the decision of most men to apply, the presence of women could have the effect of encouraging women to apply by demonstrating what can be achieved.

Ultimately, this is a pipeline issue--there are just not enough women founders who go on to be angels and VCs.

It's not a matter of women being "scared off". Diversifying the people at the top is one of the key steps to getting a more diverse organization. This was an opportunity to do it. YC chose not to.

In contrast, there's 500 Startups, where Dave McClure is actively reaching out.* Which environment is likely to look more attractive to women entrepeneurs?

* http://www.ezebis.com/venture/dave-mcclure500-startups-found...

"She got into YCombinator. She must be good." vs "She got into 500 Startups. She must be good. Or they must have tried to recruit her because of that pronoun I keep using."

This is also why affirmative action hurts the careers of people who ostensibly benefit from it, if they don't get into Harvard: at Harvard, the black/white SAT gap is fairly small. Everywhere else, it's huge, so there's a big adverse selection problem, and of course employers know about it.

I agree with Jon. Dave McClure reminds me of Albert Passingham, the son of a single mom who helped encourage women to stand up for equal pay. The role of Albert was depicted in the film Made in Dagenham http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1371155/