6 ms·

Super misleading. 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 a

Super misleading. 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.

pletnes 6y ago
6% get 1.3% => 5x too little. I think we can cry a little.
- Avalaxy 6y ago
  No, you can still not conclude that. There are still many many differences to take into account. What sort of businesses do these women start? Do they need less money for that? Are those industries less attractive to VCs (for example because they are not growth-markets)? Do women maybe prefer to raise less money so they get to keep more equity?
  - pletnes 6y ago
    Then cry «investigate», at least. 5x is a fairly large X.
    - roenxi 6y ago
      Doesn't mean anything though. I searched for picture of a "Basketball Team", and in the team in the first photo there are 7x as many black people as white. An infinite ratio of men to women too. 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.
- md5person 6y ago
  > "6% get 1.3% => 5x too little. I think we can cry a little." 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.
daleharvey 6y ago
The fact that this very well paid prestigious industry doesn't "attract" more women is a very clear sign of inequality.
- treelovinhippie 6y ago
  Where do I find these "well-paid" startup founders? Shit I've been broke for decades grinding away at this.
  - daleharvey 6y ago
    At the point where people are trying to argue that the venture capital industry is working class to try and prove that sexism doesn't exist might be a time to reevaluate what you are arguing for and why.
    - ephextom 6y ago
      If you need to resort to such a response as "people are trying to argue that the venture capital industry is working class", which your parent commenter very clearly did not do, you're not arguing from a position of strength, nor signalling an interest in debating in good faith.
      - daleharvey 6y ago
        The parent comment (and the various other "but startup founders dont get paid!") clearly were arguing that the VC industry (and its startup founder participants) are not within a prestigious and well paid sector. 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.
        ephextom 6y ago
subtypefiddler 6y ago
The article reads "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.". 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.
- treelovinhippie 6y ago
  Yeah it's a terrible article. I mapped the few sentences there were to the pie chart at the top... "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-nordic-startup-funding-2020 https://my.visme.co/view/01070kx3-unconventional-ventures-no... In the report: "all men = 85.00%" "all women = 6.35%" "mix = 8.66%"
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

pletnes 6y ago

6% get 1.3% => 5x too little. I think we can cry a little.

Avalaxy 6y ago
No, you can still not conclude that. There are still many many differences to take into account. What sort of businesses do these women start? Do they need less money for that? Are those industries less attractive to VCs (for example because they are not growth-markets)? Do women maybe prefer to raise less money so they get to keep more equity?
- pletnes 6y ago
  Then cry «investigate», at least. 5x is a fairly large X.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    Doesn't mean anything though. I searched for picture of a "Basketball Team", and in the team in the first photo there are 7x as many black people as white. An infinite ratio of men to women too. 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.
md5person 6y ago
> "6% get 1.3% => 5x too little. I think we can cry a little." 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.

daleharvey 6y ago

The fact that this very well paid prestigious industry doesn't "attract" more women is a very clear sign of inequality.

treelovinhippie 6y ago
Where do I find these "well-paid" startup founders? Shit I've been broke for decades grinding away at this.
- daleharvey 6y ago
  At the point where people are trying to argue that the venture capital industry is working class to try and prove that sexism doesn't exist might be a time to reevaluate what you are arguing for and why.
  - ephextom 6y ago
    If you need to resort to such a response as "people are trying to argue that the venture capital industry is working class", which your parent commenter very clearly did not do, you're not arguing from a position of strength, nor signalling an interest in debating in good faith.
    - daleharvey 6y ago
      The parent comment (and the various other "but startup founders dont get paid!") clearly were arguing that the VC industry (and its startup founder participants) are not within a prestigious and well paid sector. 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.
      - ephextom 6y ago

subtypefiddler 6y ago

The article reads "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.". 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.

treelovinhippie 6y ago
Yeah it's a terrible article. I mapped the few sentences there were to the pie chart at the top... "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-nordic-startup-funding-2020 https://my.visme.co/view/01070kx3-unconventional-ventures-no... In the report: "all men = 85.00%" "all women = 6.35%" "mix = 8.66%"
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]