

The VC Gender Gap: Are VCs Sexist? - cwan
http://www.pehub.com/52055/the-vc-gender-gap-are-vcs-sexist/

======
xiaoma
> _What other major industry remains 90-95% male-dominated? What’s the deal?_

Basically anything dirty or dangerous. Well over 90% of workplace fatalities
are men. Plumbers, electricians, construction workers and mechanics are nearly
always men.

Most of the prison population (which sadly, is an industry of sorts) is male,
too.

It isn't _just_ the very uppermost echelons of society that are "male-
dominated". Anybody truly concerned about equality would note that the bottom
is, too.

------
jacquesm
What a nonsense story.

Women are less risk taking than men, VC = venture capital, aka as advanced
gambling with some ability to tilt the table.

Women start-ups are less frequent for exactly those reasons.

It's also why you won't see a 50/50 split in race car drivers and high speed
car accidents.

The most practical result of that is that young males tend to take risks that
they probably shouldn't be taking, which won't stop a few of them to get huge
pay-offs.

~~~
aasarava
I know HN has many times debated the reasons for the high ratio of men to
women in the entire startup field, but I think it's important to point out yet
again that sexism _does_ play a role in preventing more women from joining the
field. This article is especially interesting because it takes the concerns
one step higher and sheds light on how few women are even working at the VC
layer.

I concede that not every industry needs to have a perfect 50/50 split. But I
don't think it's fair to dismiss sexism with the argument that women are
simply "less risk taking". Perhaps they're not willing to take risks in this
area because they don't see their chances of being rewarded as very good --
e.g., they feel they won't be allowed to be a managing partner, or won't have
access to the best investment opportunities.

~~~
jacquesm
> Perhaps they're not willing to take risks in this area because they don't
> see their chances of being rewarded as very good -- e.g., they feel they
> won't be allowed to be a managing partner, or won't have access to the best
> investment opportunities.

How does that change from the point I made ?

The chances of being rewarded are minimal, even for the best of the best.

If they won't be allowed to be a managing partner then that's between a
particular VC and a particular person.

That's nothing to do with the general case. If very few women are getting in
at the top of the funnel it stands to reason that even fewer will come out at
the bottom.

To change this you have to change the relationships at the top, the rest will
follow.

If I would approach the females in my environment with the proposition of
starting a business on a shoestring budget with a potential pay off in 3 to 5
years and a very high chance of failure most of them - if not all of them -
will decline, but they'll be happy to be employees.

For males, using the exact same proposition the situation would be much
different. As long as that's the case this situation will persist. You can't
make people want to be entrepreneurs and risk takers, everybody makes their
own decisions.

Those women that I know that are successful in business are probably better at
what they do than the men, still, none of them would ever think of joining a
fund or funding seed stage start-ups. The risk does not match their profile.
They want to control the businesses they invest in. Gambling does not seem to
be something that they wish to pursue. And it seems to work well for them,
they appear to be much less under pressure than their male counterparts in the
same lines of business. They won't make the millions in one go, but they'll
steadily clock up hundreds of thousands per year.

