I'm always perplexed when people try to generalize about gender issues. Obviously, VCs haven't fundamentally changed during the past couple of years, as the de

I'm always perplexed when people try to generalize about gender issues. Obviously, VCs haven't fundamentally changed during the past couple of years, as the decline set in. If they failed to recognize the value of funding female entrepreneurs in the past, and still fail to do this today, then this factor is basically irrelevant to what caused the recent decline. If, instead, the issue is that VCs, now that they are down, should be alert to broadening the range of investments to others that are clearly good, but that their myopia has prevented them in the past from recognizing, then this factor is not a cause of any decline but really represents a potential missed opportunity for them looking forward. This, then, is a call for VCs to broaden their outlook as a way of speeding their recovery. That is a valid point as far as it goes. The person harmed by prejudice is not just the direct victim but also the perpetrator, who lives in a shrunken and less vibrant environment and suffers accordingly. What VCs do in this area, though, will have little or no impact on the number of female entrepreneurs who are drawn to startups. The cause of the dearth of women in this area lies much farther up the chain, having to do with why women might be less drawn to get the particular technical training needed to become a founder and the like. Until that changes, whatever the VCs do will, in my view, have little or no material impact on this issue.