Slashdot Mirror
Having a Woman On Your Team Ruins Your Chances For VC Funding (theoutline.com)
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."
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.
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.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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 or Ellen Pao 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.
Om, nomnomnom...
But this sounds like it could violate the Rust Code of Conduct. If they aren't careful then the Rust Moderation Team may come after them to teach them about tolerance and acceptance.
This isn't an unheard of problem. The 1980's TV series, Remington Steele, 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 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.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
VC Funders are just idiots who happen to have money. They are nothing but uninformed morons waiting to be fooled.
The word, "fonding", is, "The act of looking at someone with such care that you radiate your love for them by simply staring at them."
The IRS does that job quite well. No need to create another layer of bureaucracy.
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...
Just another day in Paradise
If you had creimer on your team, no VC would show up in the first place!
Have some Spam-flavored Macadamia Nuts with your whine.
Right, because there are no difference between men and women. In all seriousness, see my other post on risk taking.
Just another day in Paradise
So, teams with women getting funding 25% percent as often as male-only, and the author calls those chances of getting funding almost impossible?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Mod this AC up.
Just another day in Paradise
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?
VCs might like to know they likely have a blind spot when it comes to good investments. They might also like knowing that their fellow investors likely are undervaluing some companies based on entirely illogical criteria. As TFS notes, performance wise outside of VC funding, there's no difference. There are probably VCs who are only interested in investing in companies run by dudes, but I'm guessing there are probably some VCs who are more interested in making money than maintaining a gender imbalance.
If VCs don't care about making wise decisions with their money, they can. Looks to me like no one is suggesting otherwise. I don't think anyone is suggesting they shouldn't be able to put their balls in a blender either. It's their genitals and they can do with them what they want. Definitely.
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 getting money or a top job.
Yet there is no measurable performance difference.
I would have thought that if only women who are so extraordinary it is impossible to overlook them are getting money and/or becoming corporate CEOs, their performance would far outstrip that of their comparatively less gifted male counterparts.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
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.
Seriously you know what he/she meant.
If I did, I wouldn't be looking it up. :P
Let's talk about Drupal instead. Oh wait..
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
I wonder if a VC wanted to give out 20 million dollars, someone would deny the investment because that particular VC acts on data that says he shouldn't invest in women.
More likely VCs do not respond to women's business plans or sales pitches, for whatever reason, real or perceived. We're talking about VCs, most of what they see, hear and act on is some degree of fantasy or another. Even successful investments morph over time from the pitch to the reality.
To get their money you have to appeal to some part of their lizard brain that makes them want to part with their cash, a combination of rationalization and vision. It's very likely that as they are mostly men, other men are able to identify with them and close the deal, whereas women are not.
I don't know what you do about that, and particularly wherein this is private money, there's nothing in the US that can (or imo should be) legally done about it. A lot of how the world is is based on personalities of rich people. Short of changing that, it is what it is.
perhaps the nature of business contributes to this. business is aggressive and competitive intrinsically, all-male teams may lack a moderating female influence and their presentations are on average more aggressive 'hungrier' than those with female team members, if only the creme of the crop, hungriest, most competent, stellar ventures and teams are going to get money, who's to say?
as jordan peterson is also likely to point out ... the average might be the same, that doesn't mean that skimming the top or bottom won't mean that you're only getting men only. in terms of CEOs, his exact example was that you've got a group of men who are more different than both the average woman, and the average man than the average man is from the average woman. it's just a bunch of crazy guys at the top that are driven to do nothing other than work... and everybody else. crazy guys like Paul Erdos, who literally lived mathematics to the exclusion of literally everything else.
if men and women and their 'aggression' is only 1 percent apart on average... but that's something that factors into what a VC might select for in candidate group... and .5 percent of potential companies actually get funding... that would virtually exclude all female groups...
who's also to say that the VC's figure that a core member of a team is a hungry female, a hungry young female that might someday want to start a family and will most likely, if that were the case, at least take a quarter of a year to pop out a kid? and that's a core member of a team, which isn't great at crunch time.
women tend to value work-life balance, and men are more likely to value 'providing for the family' and put in extra hours to get that promotion... which as jordan peterson has also pointed out... having a good work-life balance is a healthier way to live, the women may not be wrong in terms of living their lives properly... on the other hand, we in society and businesses in general prefer that men work themselves to death. that's just the nature of the beast though.
Or maybe VC's know something about female-led businesses that the rest of us don't want to accept.
Posting as AC because of insanely politically incorrect opinion.
Fact: women are just as good in the business as men
Fact: women are just as good in engineering as men
Fact: women are just as good in entrepreneurship as men
But also, unfortunately:
Fact: women present a higher risk to VC funding than men.
Why? Male entrepreneurs don't get pregnant. Male entrepreneurs will 99.9% of the time not ask for parental leave. Male entrepreneurs typically don't need to go home to pick up their sick child from school at 1pm (because they are supported by strong women at home).
It's simply the "traditional' household roles that make more sense to a VC funder. Is it fair? Big fat no. But is it reality? Hell yes. And you can have 20 marches on Market Street in SF, but that shit ain't going to change anytime soon.
And on a side note, if you really want to march in favor of women's rights on Market Street in SF, start with protesting against women's situations in the Middle East or Africa. They are far more worse than here in the U.S.
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 women were involved had a weak plan or a half-baked one. The fact that this study was looking at sex as a factor speaks to the SJW leanings of the study itself more than actual facts that investors care about. Why is this even on /.?
Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
Bet your wife doesn't know you posted that.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
...Oracle...
Oh, wait a minute...
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Fact: Prefixing a sentence with the word "fact" does not make it true.
Women Engineers are likely just as good at Engineering as Male Engineers.
WOMEN are not as likely to become engineers as males are.
Engineers are slightly unhinged when compared to non engineers.
Engineers do not communicate as successfully to VCs as non engineers.
Women do not always know what it is they are communicating.
Females DO manage to get VC funding. Females are more than equally likely to be shunned by other females.
Life sucks. Get up to the plate and bat. When you strike out, get up again. If you are stuck on statistics, you do not know what is happening and need to leave the game. The game is not what it appears to be, but at the same time it is. If you are fixated on female/male differences YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT the game is. If you do not understand that there are differences between males and females, you do not know what the game is.
I do not know what the game is
God: "I don't leave footprints!"
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...
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Not ex post!
How can you be so stupid?
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
Are you reading the same comments I am? It seems pretty clear that a ton of dudes are more than willing to accept what you're suggesting, without needing evidence.
But is it reality? Hell yes.
I'm glad you're convinced of your own thesis there?
And on a side note, if you really want to march in favor of women's rights on Market Street in SF, start with protesting against women's situations in the Middle East or Africa. They are far more worse than here in the U.S.
That's a false dichotomy. And that would be ineffective if not counterproductive, and everyone knows it. I mean, our war campaigns are counterproductive and that's just "drop bombs and bad guys die." Americans going over to the middle east and saying "Treat your women better" is sure to backfire spectacularly even if the language and cultural issues were sorted out. There are simpler ways of saying it, like "And feminists can go jump off the golden gate bridge."
Oh wait, first, what is the percentage of VCs that are female, and roughly, why is that?
Not suggesting female VCs would or should decide differently.
Frankly, using gender of the proponent as a criterion is just f'ing dumb.
It should be about drive, dogged determination, intelligence, team synergy, idea quality, progress so far, roadmap credibility...
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Actually...VCs typically are mingling money from other investors with their own. So if the VCs are ignoring potential opportunities for a reason unrelated to the sales pitch, they are potentially leaving money on the table and costing their investors.
Correlation is not causation, and I'm sure this isn't a conscious discrimination in nearly all cases, but do any of you really believe that women are 75% less effective at developing any component of a business model than men? Financially? In HR? Marketing?
We are the 198 proof..
"Fact: women present a higher risk to VC funding than men.
Why? Male entrepreneurs don't get pregnant. Male entrepreneurs will 99.9% of the time not ask for parental leave. Male entrepreneurs typically don't need to go home to pick up their sick child from school at 1pm (because they are supported by strong women at home)."
You are conflating work/personal issues suffered by the workforce at large with issues suffered by female executives.
1) Female entrepreneurs generally can afford a nanny.
2) If a female entrepreneur is on a startup's management team, don't you think there's an internal commitment to see it through?
3) Men may not have family life commitments (which is a statement I firmly disagree with, but I am accepting as a premise for this debate), but they have their own risks. They are far more likely to jump to a competitor for a bump in salary and/or control. This can be a risk on both ends of the jump. See recent lawsuits involving Oculus and Facebook/Zenimax.
We are the 198 proof..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1168182/Catfights-handbags-tears-toilets-When-producer-launched-women-TV-company-thought-shed-kissed-goodbye-conflict-.html
I wake up this morning, and I see creimer talking shit about someone else's bad spelling.
Have some Hot & Spicy Spam with your whine.
This at least is a slightly more plausible version of the hypothesis than originally stated, but it boils down to "VCs are more attuned to funding aggressive business plans and presentations" and assuming that such business plans are more likely to come from all-male teams.
"women tend to value work-life balance, and men are more likely to value 'providing for the family' and put in extra hours to get that promotion" - this runs completely counter to your assumption that the management teams on startups represent the top 1% of business people in the area.
You can't make an assumption that the top tier people (male or female) are different from average people and then explain away a data bias by using generalizations that apply to average people. You use the example that the top male may be more different from average men and women than the average men and women are from each other, but there is no corollary that the top men and top women are that much different or that the top women are less different from the average than the top men. (Note to all: I am using bias in a statistical sense of a data correlation that is skewed toward a particular subset not in the sense of a conscious or unconscious discrimination)
We are the 198 proof..
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 count as a defense for hate crimes?
You poor dear...that "Informative" moderation triggered you, didn't it? You just had to come out and tell that awful disagreeing person that she's wrong. Now that equilibrium has been restored, you might want to sculpt some Play-Doh or play with a stuffed animal until you calm down.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Are we still doing that?
Male entrepreneurs don't get pregnant. Male entrepreneurs will 99.9% of the time not ask for parental leave. Male entrepreneurs typically don't need to go home to pick up their sick child from school at 1pm (because they are supported by strong women at home).
Thing is, companies with women on the team had better outcomes on average. They made the investors more money. So if anything:
Fact: all-male groups present a higher risk to VC funding than mixed ones.
Why? I can only speculate, but maybe because all-male groups where only 0.1% are willing to take paternity leave and don't participate so much in family life tend to burn out make poor decisions more often. Good work/life balance, something more common in mixed groups, produces better overall results.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Actually I suspect most male entrepreneurs do not have children nor women in their lives so do nothing but work, then get drunk at the weekend, sleep it off, then go back to work.
Women work less.
I think what can be done is to educate people on what makes a good investment and what doesn't, and how we can be fooled. If we are conscious of it we can a least partially compensate. I don't think investors have some secret plan to keep women down. More likely it will be something about the way men present ideas that will attract them more. People frequently make unwise decisions based on form over substance. This probably a similar thing to something read recently saying we pick charismatic leaders over humble ones even though humble leader are generally better.
https://hbr.org/2017/04/if-hum...
Those stories always get the most comments. That suggests that people like commenting on them.
If you want them to stop, stop commenting.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
3) Men may not have family life commitments (which is a statement I firmly disagree with, but I am accepting as a premise for this debate), but they have their own risks. They are far more likely to jump to a competitor for a bump in salary and/or control. This can be a risk on both ends of the jump. See recent lawsuits involving Oculus and Facebook/Zenimax.
Counter intuitively this may be the reason men win more venture capital, because men's priority is money (not saying its a good thing) and this matches the Venture capitalists priority, so they are more likely to appeal to them. (Just a theory)
So is the Theranos case an outlier or is it because of Theranos VC do not want to fund when a woman is involved.
I don't have lots of experience working with venture capitalists. But I do have a buddy who has run a successful VC firm for years, focusing on funding projects related to education.
I suspect in the "big picture" of any new business venture (of any type) asking for funding, or even in the tech sector, there could be a statistical reality that the projects with females in the group have been less likely to succeed. That could simply be because historically, females have tried to start new companies based on feelings/emotions; the sense that subjectively, "this new product idea is amazing because *I* love it and so does my circle of friends I shared it with". It could also be partially because they've caught on to the tactic of a group of guys trying to start a company adding a "token female" with a strategy of putting things under her name to get "female owned company" favors or tax breaks at a local level? They may realize that's not the ideal formula for long-term success.
Still, I would think the type of business being pitched has as much to do with it as anything. For example, a great product to aid in teaching young kids sounds like an area where a female-run company would be an asset. More women are doing the teaching to the really young kids than men are, so women are likely to be more in touch with a concept or product that appeals to them.
actually, the example that peterson makes is with regard to high-power attorneys.
he claims, through his work consulting for law firms, that the really big firms can't keep their women. they don't know how to, because once the women hit 30, they ask themselves what the hell they're getting out of the job. they can either put in 60-80 hour work weeks for 300k or do a 9-5 at some other firm for 100k. and typically their partner, because women tend to marry up, is making as much or more than them. the firms don't want to lose their women, because they're exceptionally qualified, and exceptionally qualified is a small enough pool as it is... but they have nothing to offer them except more money and more stress.
exceptionally qualified is a tiny pool. and willing to put in 80 hours a week is vanishingly small, and those all tend to be men.
in addition, my point about 'providing for the family' is about the average male female... but that is not necessarily the governing principle at the high end. a certain amount of drive there isn't about money at all, in absolute terms, but in comparative terms. that subset of men just wants to be better than the son of a bitch to his right and left, and get more than them. ie) male aggression.
at the high end, resting on your laurels isn't a thing, vacation isn't a thing, winning is everything.
also, someone further down has made the observation that apparently, the authors of this study were looking at absolute numbers or something... so there is less likelihood of groups with women getting funding because there are less groups with women.
I think what can be done is to educate people on what makes a good investment and what doesn't
And how would you do that? If there were rules about what makes a good investment and what doesn't, then we'd all be millionaires. They already have accountants who review the company's financials (this is and always has been step 1 for big investors) and from there it's usually an emotional decision. VCs in particular are a fickle bunch, but to be honest there is not and can not be a legal requirement for you to invest in a particular business based on social factors.
The chance of romantic entanglement and drama within the lead team in a critical phase of the company that is to be invested in goes from 0 to "definitely existent" in a mixed team with a single woman. That tips the risk assessment straight out of into no-go territory.
I'd be curious about finding for all female teams. They'd probably have it a bit easier.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Maybe... Note the headline. It claims it ruins the chances. The summary then says it lowers the chances.
"When I use a word, it means exactly what I want it to mean."
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
When all else is equal, the US government has to favor companies owned by women. It has been this way since 1994. In reality, however, it means women owned companies get about 5% of the government's dollars. Most women owned businesses are small companies and only about 25% of businesses qualify.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I agree, but every time I call them chicks I get hit by the bitches.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Ok, care to explain to us how the man could get pregnant instead? If you can solve that problem, I bet a Nobel Prize is in reach.
Not to mention that you'd have a huge impact on abortion laws.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
In my experience, it usually does. If something really is a fact, there is usually little reason to stress it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Why would I give a fuck whether the guy burns out after he tripled my money?
Burn-out happens somewhere between 5 to 10 years into the whole shit. By that time my investment has either paid off or it never will, and I'm off to the next project. With a hint of bad luck that woman is pregnant next year, before she can even double my investment.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Why this is informative? Because it is.
Sorry to break it to you, but people's money is theirs, and they, not you, get to decide what they spend it on and what they invest in. It is not their business to be "fair" or to "promote equality", unless this is what they want to do with their money. If it is your agenda, you're absolutely free to use your money to do just that.
Welcome to Capitalism.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Maybe they are less effective at choosing projects that VCs consider profitable? It would be interesting to see a comparison of the projects the VCs funded and which they rejected, and whether there is more to it than "a woman on the team".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Not to mention that companies will put up a female figurehead for the fed money. Don't think so? How many have hired the "quota ni...er" to get grants?
You bet they do.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Why would I give a fuck whether the guy burns out after he tripled my money?
Well, the stats say that that you would probably make more money if there was a woman on the team. The reason why is just speculation.
Great attitude, by the way, really showing the humanity towards your fellow human beings there.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Maybe I missed it in the summary, but did they check if FEMALE VC behave the same? Cause one of the dirty secrets of today's world is that both men and women trust men more.
I have yet to see a woman in my trade (R&D Chemistry and Physics) who have not stated (while looking around so that other women do not hear her) that they prefer men as bosses just like they preferred men as teachers in school. "Men at work are interesting, innovative and creative, women are dull conformists and control freaks" is how it is usually stated.
Sorry, was channeling my inner VC. I'm a security consultant and penetration tester, forging personalities is part of the deal when you're hired for social engineering.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Would be interesting to see a study comparing the results of "hard nosed" don't-give-a-shit VPs to ones who feel a small amount of compassion. I have a feeling that the latter would ultimately do better.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
In this world run by psychopaths? Not until you change that bit first.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.