

Where are all the Women?  - venturefizz
http://venturefizz.com/blog/where-are-all-women

======
btilly
Some portion of this is culture, but some portion is definitely biology as
well. Men, across different cultures, are consistently more prone to risk
taking, and show higher variance in ability. (Interestingly women have higher
average IQs than men in our culture, but men have higher variance and are a
majority of people with _very_ high IQs.) There is an evolutionary rationale
for this, but what is important is that this has been observed.

Therefore when you look at a high-risk activity that is very ability driven,
such as startups, there is no surprise that men are over-represented. This is
probably not all of it. But even in a perfect world, there would be a clear
bias.

That said, there are many areas where women have a natural advantage over men.
Many markets exist where the majority of likely consumers are women. (For
random examples women are more likely to do shopping, organize weddings, and
sustain stronger social networks.) Any startup that wishes to succeed in such
an area would be well-advised to have a lot of female input. And a female co-
founder could be a significant asset in such a situation.

------
CodeMage
I'm far from being an expert on statistics (and related stuff), but I'm still
a bit leery of the "Women Build Great Companies" section. Don't get me wrong,
I'm not saying they don't or that I'm against having more women start
companies or anything of the kind. It's just this: all of the author's claims
in that section are backed by statistics. That makes me wonder, if there are
"so few women entrepreneurs starting high potential, high growth companies",
doesn't that make it likely that there's some statistical bias in favor of
those companies?

My reasoning is like this: if you can get into the XYZ college either by being
rich or exceptionally smart, wouldn't a statistical analysis tend to "show"
that poor people are exceptionally smart?

~~~
jff
It's like you're psychic or something, posting exactly what I was thinking
while I was still composing my response :)

------
arihelgason
"women-owned businesses accounted for 21 percent of the entrepreneurs that
sought angel-investment capital in 2009, but only 9.4 percent of those females
were successful in their quest"

But what percentage of men who seek VC get funded?

~~~
chc
This really ruins that entire statistic. It's comparing two completely unlike
things. The first number is women vs. men, but the second number is not.

------
neutronicus
3\. "They are more likely to reproduce and therefore more risk-averse."

Not a mention of this seems a little disingenuous.

------
jff
Ok, so we see that only 9% of women who apply for VC get it. Then we hear
about how startups run by women do so much better than those run by men. Now,
suppose the reason so few women get VC is because the male VCs are less
disposed to give women money--and those who do get money are those who
provided such a fantastic plan that it was a _clear_ winner. Since this
essentially makes the entrance criteria harder, you'd expect that those few
enterprises which make it through are going to do extremely well... something
along the lines of all those uber-startups run by women.

I'm not saying women can't make good companies, I'm just saying that the
implied bias on the part of male VCs would tend to select only the very best
woman-founded startups. Level the playing field, and you'll probably get the
same performance as men.

~~~
mstevens
Important related question I don't see in the article: what percentage of men
who apply for VC get it?

------
itisfritz
They have kids. White male is king of the jungle, get over it.

~~~
muhfuhkuh
White male? Last I checked, Yellow made more money on average than all the
other colors in the crayon box, kiddo.

Check your facts for stale stats.

------
MoreMoschops
They're in my basement...

