Here's the actual stats pulled from the article:
* 83% of startups were all-male and got 93% of funding.
* 6% of startups were all-female and got 1.3% of funding.
* 11% of startups were mixed and got 5.7% of funding.
Still an imbalance but paints a very different picture. Clearly the industry needs to attract more women generally before you start crying inequity.
I understand it as 6% of female-founded startups managed to raise money and they received 1.3% of total founding, rather than 6% of startups were all-female.
"all men 93%" = "All male teams made up 83% of the startups but they raised 93% of total funding".
"all women 1%" = "On top of the female-founded startups finding it difficult to raise any money at all, the 6% of startups that did, only received 1.3% of the funding"
"mixed 6%" = the remainder, which maps nicely to 5.7% rounded.
The linked report doesn't even conform to the posted article lol: https://my.visme.co/view/01070kx3-unconventional-ventures-no...
In the report:
"all men = 85.00%"
"all women = 6.35%"
"mix = 8.66%"
That isn't evidence of any sort of discrimination or prejudice. It is due to the rather difficult to dispute fact that for reasons uncertain black men seem to play better basketball. I don't even know anything about basketball I just picked a stereotype.
I'm all for investigations; but report back when there is evidence of a problem not evidence of a difference. Differences are routine.
Surely there's more to it than just percentages and genders?
First, how many companies are we actually talking about here? The Nordics are a smaller market - I don't expect it to be in the orders of thousands of companies - maybe several tens or several hundreds, at most. We shouldn't extrapolate if the sampling group is small.
Then, what about the other factors associated with investments? How are the investments spread across different sectors and industries? Locations? Growth prospects? Revenue/Operating Costs?
It's a very shallow comparison otherwise, without this data.
Failed tech entrepreneurs get highly paid tech jobs, they also had the resources (savings, safety nets via family etc) to be able to take on the risk in the first place. Pointing out the gotcha that startup founders go without pay for a while is akin arguing that cleaner's have a more prestigious job than being the CEO of Oracle while he had a 1¢ salary, its ludicrous.
Many walk away financially/mentally/physically ruined, without a well-paid job to fail into, and thus ending up substantially worse off than they would be if they'd just taken a regular job.
If you have any data to demonstrate (a) that the risk-adjusted expected return of a VC-funded male startup founder is significantly better than the expected career outcome for the many women who do very well from highly paid jobs in large tech companies, and (b) this outcome is higher only because they were granted VC funding, then we'd have something to talk about.
It's clearly simplistic to paint startup founder life as "prestigious", when in fact many founders are mocked if they fail and despised (and/or still mocked) if they succeed.
And it's a non sequitur to invoke "savings, safety nets via family etc", when this has nothing to do with gender, as it is to assert out that "failed tech entrepreneurs get highly paid tech jobs", when it's clear that people who are eligible for highly paid tech jobs can get them just as easily without starting a VC-funded company first.
That women generally prefer to take the more direct path just suggests that they make smarter life choices.
The startup tech industry, that involves high salaries and the transfer of hundreds of million pounds is a prestigious one. The overlap between YC alumni and FAANG employees makes that abundantly obvious. If you would like to say otherwise could you provide more meaningful data than your repeated comments about how mean everyone is so mean to VC's and founders.
In a very roundabout way you are right though, women are less likely start companies and raise capital because they are less likely to be in the privileged position of being able to take that risk - https://qz.com/455109/entrepreneurs-dont-have-a-special-gene...
I am very used to "girls just dont like computers" on Hacker News, I do have to say "People are mean to founders and there is no money in tech + VC" is a new one. I think the interesting question would be why you and several other commentators are so keen to try and dismiss what is such an emperically obvious fact.
To your points:
"everyone is so mean to VC's and founders"
I obviously made no mention - complaint or otherwise - of people being mean to VCs. For what it's worth I don't care what people say about VCs. I have little regard for most of them, and generally recommend people avoid dealing with them.
As for founders, obviously the "tall poppy syndrome" is a widely accepted concept. And obviously founders both successful and novice are frequently the topic of derision, from the earliest stages in Show HN or Launch HN threads, through the vitriol and/or ridicule routinely heaped on the founders/execs of companies like Facebook, Twitter, Uber, Google, to the schadenfreude frenzies that swept up around the collapses of Theranos, WeWork and now Quibi. Please note I'm not decrying all this criticism as manifestly unjust; just pointing out that it exists in great volume, and whether it's justified or not, it's awful to experience, and a turnoff to most normal people.
"The startup tech industry, that involves high salaries and the transfer of hundreds of million pounds is a prestigious one. The overlap between YC alumni and FAANG employees makes that abundantly obvious."
- By focusing on FAANG companies and YC, you're taking the tip of the iceberg and extrapolating that to every startup founder in the world. Even then, you overlook that many YC founders don't make it into FAANG or other highly-paid jobs. But vastly more founders don't even get into YC, and don't get a shot at highly-paid FAANG jobs. And the mere fact that the acronym "FAANG" has just 5 letters demonstrates just how unusual it is to achieve huge success in startups.
- The most prestigious jobs continue to be in law, medicine, government, banking, stockbroking, realty/construction, arts/media, and parts of academia and science. Startup founders tend to be misfits, and often people who lack the human skills to make it in the traditional prestige industries I mentioned, as seen in media/pop culture portrayals of people like Mark Zuckerburg, Jack Dorsey and Elizabeth Holmes.
- I don't dispute that there is prestige for people who make it big with startups, but this discussion is specifically about the risk-adjusted expected outcome across the board, and in those terms, the other sectors offer a much more reliable path to prestige.
"women are less likely start companies and raise capital because they are less likely to be in the privileged position of being able to take that risk"
The article you linked to doesn't mention women at all, and only mentions gender once in passing. Gender obviously has nothing to do with inherited wealth or safety net.
"I am very used to "girls just dont like computers" on Hacker News, I do have to say "People are mean to founders and there is no money in tech + VC" is a new one. I think the interesting question would be why you and several other commentators are so keen to try and dismiss what is such an emperically obvious fact."
I've never prosecuted the "girls just don't like computers" line.
"People are mean to founders and there is no money in tech + VC" is obviously not what I said.
"I think the interesting question..."
Yes indeed.
For whatever it's worth, my interest in this topic comes from having studied startup success and failure in myself and others over at least 10-15 years, including mentoring and advising startup founders, including women and other people of various minority classes on a purely voluntary basis.
The obvious pattern is that the (mostly) white (mostly) males who tend to go for the big win via VC funding are highly egotistical, and usually quite dysfunctional by conventional standards. Sometimes it can lead to outsized success but with quite damaging externalities, just as we're witnessing with such companies as Facebook, Twitter, Uber, etc.
Whereas women and minority founders are often more grounded and modest in their ambitions, and the companies they start, whilst being less attractive to VCs (as VCs are playing for $10B+ "home run" exits), can be more likely to to be sustainable and positive in their impact on the world.
This turns out to be a much better deal for the founders and for everyone else, and is very pleasing for me to see, as is the example of the woman I mentioned who IPO'd her company yesterday, having never taken VC.
So a better one-liner for my position would perhaps be "women generally aren't egotistical enough, dysfunctional enough or interested enough in games of winner-takes-all capitalism to attract VC".
That said, neither are most men, but enough are that it makes all the difference.
But my main point is it doesn't matter. The non-VC path is a much better deal, and I think women entrepreneurs are smart enough to know that, and fortunately there's growing support for women and people of minorities to start companies get a great outcome for themselves.
Startups are hard and poorly compensated for the majority of people who attempt them.
The risk-adjusted expected return for being a startup founder doesn't seem high.
Or rather, it's a bimodal distribution, with a tiny number of incredibly rich (and also widely despised) people at one end, and the vast majority at the other end, making effectively nothing.
It's not surprising that fewer women would take those odds.
That said, two of Australia's leading startup founders are women, one of whom IPO'd her company today. (Incidentally, she never raised VC.)
This is a great thing that should be celebrated.
I can accept that there are things about the startup/VC world that make it more hostile for women. But the skew of VC funding isn't the smoking gun.