Articles like these always make the same inference, and then lead to a similar conclusion: If a woman CEO gets rejected over and over, then it _must_ be sexism (and/or racism); and, then a gender- (or race-) biased investment firm steps in to promote business based on the gender of the CEOS/Founders, and a moral transgression is set straight.
The article asserts that the recession somehow makes investors stupid and frightened, wherein they think via 'templates' or some archetypal response. I think the word they apply is something more like 'scrutiny' -- at least I sure hope so.
It's 2010 -- let's start focusing on merit. I don't care what letters the woman carries from name-brand institutions. It just might be possible that her business ideas don't attract investment. Has that been considered? How many males from these fine institutions also fail in business? I know the number isn't zero.