Only if their being overlooked is orthogonal to the forces that determine their success. If sexism does make it harder for them to succeed then maybe that's priced in accurately.
It’s not a question of whether it’s priced in, it’s about giving everyone the same starting line.
This was a really thoughtless comment in my opinion
Not that I disagree with your argument, but pointing out it is on different grounds than what it was posted in response to.
My hunch is that the risk factor this introduces is at least an order of magnitude less significant than other risk factors, like having an appropriate go to market strategy or proper customer base research.
> If you can identify an overlooked segment of founders, you can invest in that group and get industry beating returns.
I described a way that might be false. I did not make any moral claim, and certainly don't think that "actual sexism should take place during funding."
Please be more thoughtful yourself.
If sexism towards female founders in the intended market is a major risk factor (I don’t believe it can be considered major, which is up for debate), then it’s a VCs opportunity to cut through to the core of what makes the _business_ and its _products_ viable... not simply to pass because the market won’t like a female founder as much as a male founder.
But then that’s what a VC should be doing anyway. So founder gender and any perception of market bias towards that should become an increasingly insignificant factor in the funding process.