Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses The Almighty Buck

Having a Woman On Your Team Ruins Your Chances For VC Funding (theoutline.com) 296

Laura June, writing for The Outline: It's a well-known, well-documented fact that women entrepreneurs face an uphill battle in the fight to get funding for their businesses. But a new study suggests that it can actually be almost impossible. According to the study, published Tuesday in the journal Venture Capital, having even one woman on a company's team makes them far less likely to get funding than an entirely male one. In fact, an all male team is about four times more likely to get funding than teams with any women on them. The study was done by researchers at Babson College and Wellesley, and looked at data on 6,793 companies funded between 2011 and 2013. This is the first large-scale study in a decade to focus on women's efforts to get funding, and it's not encouraging. The authors write, "We did not determine any significant performance differences between companies with women CEOs from companies with men CEOs, so it is quite surprising that women are still, practically speaking, shut out of the market for venture capital funding, both as CEOs and participants of executive teams."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Having a Woman On Your Team Ruins Your Chances For VC Funding

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @09:47AM (#54882011)

    The implication that all VCs are sexist-driven rather than profit-driven is a bit perplexing. These are the people that are like the Iron Bank from GoT. They probably don't even see the people for who they are, rather than just seeing us all as numbers, except possibly the one that claims to be the CEO for sheer viability.

    • by JoshuaZ ( 1134087 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @09:48AM (#54882037) Homepage
      The idea isn't that people are consciously putting sexism in front of profits but rather that they are unconsciously allowing sexism to cause them to underestimate their potential profits.
      • by KiloByte ( 825081 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @09:58AM (#54882137)

        There's plenty bad you can say about Vulture Capital companies, but not that they're bad about correlating past chances for a startup to become profitable with various pieces of data about those startups, especially data that is easy to measure.

        If they noticed that teams that include women are statistically non-negligibly less likely to succeed, they will use that knowledge. They don't care that you have a poontang instead of a wang, they care about what has historically been proven to give better chances of profit.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          If they noticed that teams that include women are statistically non-negligibly less likely to succeed, they will use that knowledge.

          That doesn't seem likely or supported by any evidence.

          More likely, they are mostly not consciously being sexist, deliberately discriminating against teams with women on them. Rather, there is subconscious bias. Both men and women exhibit this bias. Doesn't make them bad people, just human.

          • by denzacar ( 181829 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @12:28PM (#54883945) Journal

            Cause it is.
            Biased, post hoc ergo propter hoc nonsense.

            They didn't do a comparison of probability for a company to get VC funding based on the presence of women.
            They didn't compare companies which received VC funding vs. those that didn't.
            They just took all the VC funded companies and counted ones with women listed on the company profile.

            It's a literal post hoc condition for determination of likelihood of receiving VC funding.

            As for bias... From the study:

            The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) reports that in 2013 approximately 13% of the working population of the United States was in the process of starting or running a new business - the rate for women was 11% compared with 16% for men (Kelley, Brush, Greene, and Y. Litovsky 2013 Kelley, D., C. Brush, P. Greene, and Y. Litovsky. 2013.
            The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Women's Report. Wellesley, MA: Babson College. [Google Scholar]). This means that one out of every 10 women in the United States was becoming an entrepreneur, which is a higher rate of female entrepreneurship than for any of the other 24 developed economies.

            Disregarding the fact that they are confusing "one out of every 10 women in the United States" with 11% OF the 13% OF the working population... in the process of starting or running a NEW business.
            People who write biased crap can't do math. Big surprise there.

            But their criteria for VC funding female teams is "a single female on the team".
            In other words, their sample will look a LOT like that 11% mentioned in the cited study, as it doesn't discriminate between the teams with a single woman, teams with more women or teams with one or more women starting or running a business which is not new, but only seeking VC funding for the first time.
            Cause they are going out of their way to find a proof of "women being bad luck on the ship".

            Number of VC funded companies, according to the study, with at least one women on the company profile in that same year (2013)? 18%.
            2012 - 13%.
            2011 - 9%

            I.e. Percentage of companies with women on the team receiving VC funding is actually higher than the percentage of women in the process of starting or running a new business.
            It's even higher than the percentage of ALL population starting or running a new business.

            Only thing they got right is that there are MORE COMPANIES WITH WOMEN.
            But that's not the idea they want to get behind.
            See... there's this patriarchy thing...

            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              They just took all the VC funded companies and counted ones with women listed on the company profile.

              It's a literal post hoc condition for determination of likelihood of receiving VC funding.

              The actual study doesn't make the claim in those terms. It looks at the amount of VC funding received. Maybe TFA doesn't report it well, but that's not the fault of the study.

              Any it couldn't really be any other way, because I doubt anyone keeps stats on the number of companies that pitch and get nothing. That doesn't mean that the conclusions they draw are invalid automatically.

              Disregarding the fact that they are confusing "one out of every 10 women in the United States" with 11% OF the 13% OF the working population... in the process of starting or running a NEW business.

              You misread it. They are saying that 13% of the working population is involved in starting or running a new business. That includes

              • The actual study doesn't make the claim in those terms.

                Except it does. Right there in the conclusion.

                However, there is still a significant gender gap, in that all-men teams are four times more likely to receive funding from venture capital investors than companies with even one woman on the team.

                It's pushing the idea of "women are bad luck for VC investments". By describing it as a probability.
                WHICH IT IS NOT!

                Probability for the companies in the study to receive VC funding is 100%. They've ALL received VC funding.
                Regardless of their being women, Chinese or little green men on the team.
                You can't do conditional probability for A happening when the condition is that A has already happened. That's a loop.
                It's not "You're not poor BECAUSE you have money"

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) <mojo&world3,net> on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @12:08PM (#54883707) Homepage Journal

          According to the study, it's the exact opposite:

          "Are there differences in performance outcomes between male and female entrepreneurs funded by venture capital?

          When looking at outcome measures, we see that company valuations are significantly and consistently higher for companies with a woman on the team than those with no women."

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward

            So, either venture capitalists are choosing teams that will make them less money, or academics are fudging the numbers. Which would you like to bet?

            Bear in mind that venture capitalists are under enormous financial pressure to get the best return from their capital, and academics are under substantial political pressure to produce results that support a feminist narrative.

      • by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @10:06AM (#54882253)
        The issue (if it is one at all as you'd want to look for confounding factors to control for before leaping to a judgement) should be self-correcting. Assume for the sake of argument that all ventures are equally good regardless of the sexes of the team or that from a funding perspective they all have equally good returns. Investors who don't discriminate on sex would be able to get greater returns because there are fewer other VCs that want to invest so they can negotiate a better deal. Since the returns are just as good, those investors make more money and other investors start to adopt their investment strategy.

        It really only takes one to figure that out and the market corrects. Of course not all projects are equal, so there is a question as to whether or not women are more disposed to be parts of projects that don't have as good of return potential as men.

        I suppose I could read the study myself to see if this was done or attempted.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          You assume a supply shortage of companies to invest in. If there are many companies seeking investment, an arbitrary and unfair mechanism for winnowing out companies would be an advantage (unless it's strongly anti-correlated with success; that is, the companies you refuse to consider due to arbitrary criteria can't be significantly more likely to succeed).

          If there's no performance difference measured from having women on your team, as the linked study found, only choosing all-male teams is a safe winnowing

        • by Ed Tice ( 3732157 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @11:07AM (#54882983)
          A better comment than mine was already posted by an AC. However, the other point here is that, the mechanisms you are describing require time to take effect. If people of a particular gender or nationality were available cheaper, exploiting the arbitrage would close it and the problem would self-correct. But lots of data says that this hasn't happened. Clearly this arbitrage is, in many areas, *closing* but that isn't the same as *closed*. So the conclusion is either that (a) there really are differences between genders and races that make one more valuable than the other or (b) the natural forces that you describe take a long time to take effect. I tend to think it's the latter. If I'm a highly profitable sexist and racist company, I can stay that way for a *long* time. Eventually market conditions may change where somebody with better employees can eat my market share. But until then, I'm coming along making high returns (maybe not as high as if I weren't racist/sexist) and perpetuating discrimination. I think you are right that these forces will *eventually* close the arbitrage but the time frame will be longer than the lifetime of those currently in the work force.
          • I don't think they take that long to take effect. For instance, it didn't take long for large amounts of certain types of labor to move to China or other countries when it become more financially viable to locate them their. If women are identical to men for all purposes of return on investment for business ventures in technology, then this suggests (assuming the results of this study) that there is a huge amount of arbitrage to exploit. Financial blue bloods (or at least the successful ones) go around look
        • The issue (if it is one at all as you'd want to look for confounding factors to control for before leaping to a judgement) should be self-correcting. Assume for the sake of argument that all ventures are equally good regardless of the sexes of the team or that from a funding perspective they all have equally good returns. Investors who don't discriminate on sex would be able to get greater returns because there are fewer other VCs that want to invest so they can negotiate a better deal. Since the returns are just as good, those investors make more money and other investors start to adopt their investment strategy.

          It really only takes one to figure that out and the market corrects. Of course not all projects are equal, so there is a question as to whether or not women are more disposed to be parts of projects that don't have as good of return potential as men.

          I suppose I could read the study myself to see if this was done or attempted.

          The 80's called and they want their assumption of perfectly rational economic actors back.

          • No actor is perfectly rational, but a free market ensures that the most irrational actors are quickly eliminated. If you don't believe me take two sums of money and invest one with an investment group and the other yourself using a random number generator to determine investment decisions and see which works out better. The argument isn't that all actors are perfect, but that if you see these results there's likely a rational reason for them or in the event that there isn't one, these results will soon ceas
        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          It's hard for investors to overcome their subconscious biases, even when the rational part of their brain knows that mixed teams are a better investment. The study looked at outcomes and found strong evidence that mixed teams provided a significantly better ROI than all-male ones.

          The problem is that the bias is really subtle. The investor perceives the pitch as weaker when coming from a woman (again, two studies demonstrating that with repeatable experiments are cited) so they think it's more risky, and eve

      • by Anonymous Coward

        From what I can see, the data has two easily visible explanations.
        1. VCs are sexist and don't like to fund teams with women on them.
        Or
        2. Women are more like to choose (or be placed) in projects that are less likely to receive VC funding

        Correlation does not imply causation. Data and evidence has no meaning without interpretation.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          An earlier study, cited in this one, looked at this issue: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi... [tandfonline.com]

          They made identical pitches and found that the gender of the person making the pitch affected the outcome. Both male and female investors were affected in the same way, biased against women making the pitch.

          It's what is known as institutional sexism. The individual investors are not necessarily sexist or consciously biased, it's a more general bias in a society that portrays masculinity as stronger and more reliable

        • by whh3 ( 450031 )

          From what I can see, the data has two easily visible explanations.
          1. VCs are sexist and don't like to fund teams with women on them.
          Or
          2. Women are more like to choose (or be placed) in projects that are less likely to receive VC funding

          Correlation does not imply causation. Data and evidence has no meaning without interpretation.

          Data have, not has.

      • by epyT-R ( 613989 )

        It's still a bad default assumption.

    • by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @11:20AM (#54883153)

      Indeed. For this to have _any_ significance with regards to sexism, it needs to prove causation. Otherwise it means exactly nothing.

      However, it gives us one data-point in a related discussion: This is yet another faulty argument trying to prove sexism against women. That tells me that the people trying to prove sexism against women are probably pretty bad at statistics. This study here was authored by four women. It would be interesting to see whether a) there is a correlation between bad statistics and female authorship and b) whether there actually is causation.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) <mojo&world3,net> on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @12:06PM (#54883691) Homepage Journal

        If you bothered to read the study, they vite evidence that proves causation:

        "The effects of sex were investigated in a study of men and women pitching in three experiments, where the results showed that investors prefer pitches presented by men, even when the content of the pitch is the same (Brooks et al. 2014)"

        "More specifically, another study of venture pitches finds different results, where sex of the entrepreneur does not influence investor preference for the venture but gender does, whereby there were systematic biases against femininity, and entrepreneurial competence was associated with masculinity (Balachandra et al.)"

        • by colinwb ( 827584 )
          Non-obligatory Punch (defunct UK humourous again) cartoon [photoshelter.com] - caption: "That's an excellent suggestion, Miss Triggs. Perhaps one of the men here would like to make it."
        • Started out as a good argument then went down to crazy town.

          "The effects of sex were investigated in a study of men and women pitching in three experiments, where the results showed that investors prefer pitches presented by men, even when the content of the pitch is the same (Brooks et al. 2014)"

          Alright. That's informative and the sort of sociological work that I'd expect from real scientists.

          "More specifically, another study of venture pitches finds different results, where sex of the entrepreneur does not influence investor preference for the venture but gender does, whereby there were systematic biases against femininity, and entrepreneurial competence was associated with masculinity (Balachandra et al.)"

          ....What? Ok, first off, if THIS study shows that sex doesn't have an influence, that directly contradicts the first paper. Hey, I get that, sociology is a soft and squishy science and studying it is hard. You're going to be able to find papers that come to different conclusions. The solution is a massive amount of reproduction. Boring and bana

          • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            You can read the paper they are citing. Basically they took it beyond just the sex of the person asking for investment by comparing pitches with different gender signifiers, meaning comparing feminine language, mannerisms, dress and the like with masculine versions.

            So basically, the more masculine a woman acts the less she is disadvantaged. Appearance, tone of voice, choice of words etc. The mere fact that the investor knows the gender of the entrepreneur doesn't seem to have much effect, it's how they subc

          • by bwcbwc ( 601780 )

            You're assuming that the cross-dressers were detected as such by the VCs. The whole point of the study would have been to make the cross-dressing indetectable. I would also expect some "Pat" or "Chris" characters that were dressed ambiguously to serve as a control.

        • by bwcbwc ( 601780 )

          This second one is interesting, as it implies there was cross-dressing involved so that males were perceived as women and vice versa. Either that or I don't understand the difference between sex and gender as sociological terms.
          "More specifically, another study of venture pitches finds different results, where sex of the entrepreneur does not influence investor preference for the venture but gender does, whereby there were systematic biases against femininity, and entrepreneurial competence was associated w

    • The implication that all VCs are sexist-driven rather than profit-driven is a bit perplexing. These are the people that are like the Iron Bank from GoT. They probably don't even see the people for who they are, rather than just seeing us all as numbers, except possibly the one that claims to be the CEO for sheer viability.

      Which is pretty much the opposite of what they actually do.

      VCs don't care about the product, if the product was finished they wouldn't need VCs. The VCs care about the team, they're looking for people who can actually use the money that's given and bring the project to market. It's basically a fancy job interview.

      That these VCs end up doubling down on the same biases as everyone else in entirely predictable, I'd expect the same results for start-ups with black team members as well.

    • by hey! ( 33014 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @11:50AM (#54883501) Homepage Journal

      You are operating under the assumption that people (or even a subset of people) are rational. Here's a simple test: does "gut" instinct play any part at all in your decision making processes? If so, you are at least to some degree irrational. Don't feel bad, you have lots of company: the rest of the human race.

      If you look at the historical efforts of venture capitalists, you have to conclude that they're as irrational as anyone else. What injects realism into the process is failure. The thing is, having a bias against female team members doesn't necessarily result in failure. It results in narrowed opportunity for success, but if the rational aspects of the VCs decision processes bias those decisions enough to success, he'll still make money, and he'll feel completely vindicated in his mistaken belief in his rationality.

      It's a case of the dog that didn't bark -- in this case the investment that you didn't take that would have made you a ton of money. However, now that this is out, it's possible that some smart VCs will start looking for undervalued opportunities. It will only be a matter of time before we have our first female rock star tech entrepreneur, and that will change things.

    • Your argument makes no sense. Sure they see numbers. But the numbers they see are incorrect because they are sexist.

  • by ranton ( 36917 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @09:53AM (#54882083)

    I have only read through the paper's methodology section and conclusion so far, but it appears they didn't look at the total number of pitches by companies with at least one woman founder. They only looked at companies which did receive funding. Their study therefore says nothing about whether women on your founding team has anything to do with whether you will get funding. It just says there are less women founders.

    This isn't just a case of the article having a misleading title. The study itself makes conclusions it cannot back up.

    • by CptLoRes ( 4510239 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @10:29AM (#54882465)
      Sadly, this was pretty much exactly what I expected. It is no longer just news that are hyperbole, but also so called scientific studies.. Showing that VC funded teams are overly represented by males (no big surprise there), does not correlate to women being excluded unless you can show a matching trend of teams with women in them being refused VC.
    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      That is a pretty bad fail. Their results are completely meaningless.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Their study therefore says nothing about whether women on your founding team has anything to do with whether you will get funding. It just says there are less women founders.

      That is incorrect. You are assuming that "received venture capital" is a single, one-off event with equal value every time. As they make clear in the study, it's not. Companies get multiple investments, and the investments differ in size. Therefore, what they look at is not the number of investments if a binary invested/not invested, but the total monetary value of those investments per company.

      With a sample size of over 6000 in a timeframe of 2 years, that's statistically valid. They acknowledge that there

    • by bwcbwc ( 601780 )

      Not exactly. The study in the article cites two previous studies that showed that identical pitches were more likely to get funding if they were made by men than if they were made by women. This study proceeded from the assumption that VCs were already biased in selecting all male teams because the previous studies had already demonstrated the pitch bias. This study was looking at the outcomes regardless of how the pitch was given.

      There's still the possibility of flaws in the previous studies, nobody on thi

  • by will_die ( 586523 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @09:53AM (#54882089) Homepage
    They only used companies that got funding and ignored the composition of companies that requested funding but never got it.
    Based on that you might as well say this study shows that companies with a women in lead position comes up worse ideas then a team of all men.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      "This study has flaws, therefore I'm going to believe the exact opposite of their conclusions."

      Based on that you might as well say this study shows that companies with a women in lead position comes up worse ideas then a team of all men.

      Well, occam's razor would suggest no, especially given that numerous other studies have demonstrated that people are often biased against women. And the study notes that the success rate varies between states. So your alternative hypothesis is that magically, VCs are immune from biases that are well documented, and it's just women from some states have worse ideas that men in their groups accept.

      Also, startups

      • Well if I already believe the exact opposite of a study and it comes out flawed, of course that reinforces the existing belief. A study tried to prove the opposite and failed. That's not evidence of absence but sure is a strong indicator. It's probably very *hard* to get a census of all teams that have pitched for VC funding and any sampling would be rife with sampling bias problems. If 5% of total teams have women on them and 10% of funding goes to teams with women, this shows a bias in *favor* of wome
      • by Baloroth ( 2370816 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @11:22AM (#54883177)

        And the study notes that the success rate varies between states.

        Here's the problem: the study, as far as I can tell, at no point actually gives the success rate, in any way. It only talks about the percentage of funded companies with women on the executive team. That's all. It then pretends that that percentage is some kind of proxy for a success rate, but it isn't. It could, in fact, be that all companies with women on the executive team that apply for funding get it (which would imply that VCs actually have a strong bias towards women-run companies), and there just aren't a lot of such companies. It could also be that very few such companies receive funding (which would imply the exact opposite, that VCs have strong anti-women biases). In other words: the study tells us exactly nothing about VC bias for or against women. And the study does make this claim: it says women are "shut out" of VC funding, but it in no way shows that.

        Is there an available data-set of companies that attempted to gain funding and didn't, let alone their gender breakdown? I tried to start a company briefly and received no funding. It's not a formalized process, there wasn't a department of startups we had to get a license from. The only way you'd know it ever happened is if you talked to one of the four or five people involved in our pitch.

        No, there probably isn't such a data set. You know how to fix that? You go out and you make the data set. That's what science is all about. It's not easy, but few things worth doing are.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          It only talks about the percentage of funded companies with women on the executive team. That's all.

          No, it doesn't talk about that at all. You haven't read it, have you? You are just pretending to have.

          The study doesn't look at the percentage that were funded. How could it, when no-one keeps stats on how many pitches were received but rejected? What it looks at is the amount of money invested via VC funding in over 6000 companies in a two year time span, and what proportion of that funding went to companies with at least one woman on the team making the pitch. Not even the executive team necessarily, just

  • Reap What You Sow (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @09:55AM (#54882117)

    When TV cameras are tripping all over themselves to put women who scream about workplace sexual harassment in front of the lens, then what did you think was going to happen? Venture capitalists aren't stupid. The easiest way to avoid having to put out a public relations fire is to remove the kindling from the equation entirely.

  • by Ty ( 15982 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @09:58AM (#54882143)

    Misleading summary and conclusion from a website that with a subtitle of, "Did we ban men yet."

    Direct quote from the study:

    The average dollar investment in businesses with a woman on the management team was slightly higher for all three years during 2011â"2013, $12 million for those with women, $8 million for those with no women.

    • by aardvarkjoe ( 156801 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @11:03AM (#54882935)

      The average dollar investment in businesses with a woman on the management team was slightly higher for all three years during 2011Ã"2013, $12 million for those with women, $8 million for those with no women.

      That's kind of an odd statement. Since when is a 50% difference "slightly" higher?

      • by green1 ( 322787 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @11:36AM (#54883331)

        In the same world where women were "shut out" while still getting funding, and where a conclusion about the percentage of teams with women getting funding was made without counting how many did not. (a percentage requires both a numerator, and a denominator to calculate!)

        In other words, this is a biased, sexist, political hit piece, and not a scientific study.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @09:59AM (#54882163)

    Please stop posting BS gender issues on slashdot once and for all... It's not tech news, it's not nerd news, it's not news you want to hear, it's not even a news... It's just BS.

    There is about 96% male CEOs so their companies gets about the same percentage of the funding. WHAT A SURPRISE...

    And don't tell me somebody in western countries is forbidding women to create their own businesses or denying funding for good businesses, because it was woman's idea...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @10:00AM (#54882183)

    Can we please get some good submissions on the front page today?

    This one is pretty much just political, meant to agitate leftists and get them to post a lot of angry comments about "sexism".

    The one before this one was about transsexuals in the US military. Again, it was meant to agitate leftists and get them to post a lot of angry comments about "transphobia".

    The one before that one was about Americans avoiding vaccines. Yet again, it was meant to agitate leftists and get them to post a lot of angry comments about "anti-vaxxers".

    I know, I know. Some will claim it's done to generate controversy, which generates page loads, which generates ad views. That argument never made sense to me, as most of us here are probably smart enough to block ads outright, or if some embedded ones do slip through, we just ignore them.

    Can we have relevant articles on the front page, please? Ones having to do with science, technology, math, computing, electronics, and stuff like that which we can't get from other news sources?

    Can we not be subjected to these petty identity politics? If we wanted to argue about "sexism" or "transphobia" or "anti-vaxxers" we could just go to a site like Huffington Post or Reddit.

    There are lots of good Firehose submissions about truly interesting topics that don't involve -isms or -phobias or identity politics. Editors, let's get some of those on the Slashdot front page, ok?

    We come here to discuss open source software, programming languages, Linux, tinkering with electronics, and to learn about new scientific discoveries. We don't come here for leftist identity politics.

  • Fully strange... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Mashiki ( 184564 ) <[mashiki] [at] [gmail.com]> on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @10:03AM (#54882215) Homepage

    The opposite should be true. After all, the "woman are wonderful effect" is very well known. Both men and woman have an unconscious pro-bias towards woman as well. Ranging from social to material interests. But you can look all over society and find cases where this isn't true because of the problems it brings.

    And those problems? You can thank false allegations, socjus, fake sexual harassment, cases like this [mercurynews.com] or Ellen Pao [nytimes.com] and the ability of a woman to destroy your career and life over a false claim. I'll bet that nearly every person that reads this comment and is currently working in a corporate environment of some kind has seen the shift where men leave doors open, or have one or more individuals in the same room with them when talking to a woman. There's a reason for it.

    And it's to the point where that even if proven false in the court of law that a man's choices are commit suicide or try to work through it, by picking up and moving to another part of the world to try and start over. It's not worth the trouble, and this is a result of people trying to limit and protect themselves from a potential fallout. I'm sure someone is going to bring up a "but it really doesn't destroy them..." No? Find anyone who's been the subject of a false claim, and you'll find a person who's lost friends, family, career, connections, and are ostracized even when innocent, the person recanted, or was dismissed by the courts with prejudice against the accuser.

  • by __aaclcg7560 ( 824291 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @10:07AM (#54882261)
    This isn't an unheard of problem. The 1980's TV series, Remington Steele [amzn.to], explained the situation in the intro for each episode: Laura Holt (Stephanie Zimbalist) opens a private investigation agency, gets no business as a woman, and renames the agency with a fictional male owner who is always unavailable. Until a jewel thief steps into the role (Pierce Bronsan), but that's a different problem.
  • I'm not surprised (Score:2, Insightful)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 )
    I hate to say it, but even with all things being equal you still have to worry about your owner having a kid. Men work harder when their wives get pregnant, woman take time off.
    • Men work harder when their wives get pregnant, woman take time off.

      Unsupported broadbrushing. Some men may work harder, sure, but I doubt if it's most. New parents, male and female, tend to be pretty exhausted. And lots of men take time off when the baby first comes home.

    • I hate to say it, but even with all things being equal you still have to worry about your owner having a kid. Men work harder when their wives get pregnant, woman take time off.

      You'd take time off, too, if you spent nine months carrying a bowling-ball strapped to your abdomen.

  • I'm sure someone will jump on this as sexist, but women don't take as much risk as men. Why that is, is up for discussion, but until it's fixed, it makes sense for VCs to take less risk with them. There's plenty written on the topic, here's a sample.

    https://www.entrepreneur.com/a... [entrepreneur.com]

  • So, teams with women getting funding 25% percent as often as male-only, and the author calls those chances of getting funding almost impossible?
  • Bullshit website (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Bender Unit 22 ( 216955 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @10:30AM (#54882477) Journal

    I looked at the other "articles" from that website.
    It has golden nuggets like this " For as long as America has existed, its criminal justice system has maintained the supremacy of white people. "
    I must admit that I choose to skip the "placenta osso buco" article.

    Why do you keep linking to garbage sites like that, what the fuck is wrong with you?

  • by JohnFen ( 1641097 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @10:37AM (#54882595)

    It should be avoided anyway.

  • From the summary:"We did not determine any significant performance differences between companies with women CEOs from companies with men CEOs, so it is quite surprising that women are still, practically speaking, shut out of the market for venture capital funding, both as CEOs and participants of executive teams."

    So presumably, there is a much harsher filtration system in place for women, both as CEOs and as successful funding recipients. Only the astoundingly good ones would even have a slim chance of ge

  • Look at the Study (Score:4, Informative)

    by SmaryJerry ( 2759091 ) on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @10:45AM (#54882691)
    People are already talking about correlation etc, but the study tells a different story than the slashdot summary. The study shows that companies with woman on the executive team were 15% of all companies in the sample (Table 1 and 2). It also shows that companies with woman on the executive team made 25% of total funding dollars across all industries (Table 5). It also shows that companies with woman on the executive team received an average valuation of $73 million those without woman received only $49 million (Table 8). In fact the only fact supporting the summary was that companies with woman as CEOs received a valuation of $40 million investment versus male CEOs who had $54 million on average. It is important to note there were only 119 companies with woman as CEOs while there were 3554 with males CEOs, a much larger sample. Obviously each individual company with a woman CEO effects the average valuation greater for their sex and you can decide for yourself if that makes the number less relevant or a good measure.
  • Venture Capital investing is faith based. (no, not religious) There are many factors that can come into play when you're giving your money to someone and hoping for a ROI. I highly doubt that the sex of the person seeking the capital is one of them. Good ideas are not enough. A plan for execution is more important than the idea itself and VC investors know that. Because no two ventures are the same, there is no baseline from which to jump to the conclusion that the study suggests. Maybe the options where wo
  • Not ex post!
    How can you be so stupid?

  • The article is clearly misleading and hurts women. If I'm a VC I look at two things in a company. Is the company a good investment and will others think it is a good investment. If the company is above very good, is going to take 10 years to turn a profit but I think others will perceive it as nearly worthless then I won't invest in it because I have no way to get my money out and I also fear that I might end up being the only one bank rolling the company, tying up my money for a decade.

    Does stupidity
  • Women work less.

Hard work never killed anybody, but why take a chance? -- Charlie McCarthy

Working...