Where are all the Women?

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.

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?

"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?

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

Not a mention of this seems a little disingenuous.

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.

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

They're in my basement...