A bit odd to use Elizabeth Holmes as the article image. She’s an outlier and does not represent the majority of women-led businesses. Featuring it as the main image is contradictory to your main point.
You could make an argument Silicon Valley is hostile to women, but it's actually all of America. The U.S. does not provide federally mandated paid maternity leave, being the only industrialized country without a national paid leave policy. That's not a normal policy and it's indicative of wide sexism normalized in the culture. The women in Tech movement back in the early 2010s basically failed and things have been going downhill now with the assault on DEI. Witness how women are treated on social media? Cards are stacked against you in the U.S. if you are a woman, are non-white or have a goofy (non-American) English accent. In VC both on the partner and startup side, this gets magnified.
This is why I left X. I was following Dan Koe’s advice to be on X and test your ideas there before writing longer content. This is advice from a dude, FOR dude marketers. That was my experience after 3-4 months of posting there multiple times a day - crickets.
Thank you for bringing awareness to this!!! So important. We are currently building a female-led start-up and these issues are definitely on our minds...
Double? I am being outfunded by my male competitors as much as 20-1. And what happens? They blow through millions with incompetence and inexperience, then get even more money because they “learned.” They learned things I have known already for 20 years.
I am doing something about it so any female founders reading this, buy a Need Money Not Friends shirt and join the movement to raise a 10M VC for female founders. https://needmoneynotfriendsfund.com
It’s amusing to encounter an article touting the outperformance of women-owned startups, only to feature Elizabeth Holmes - a convicted fraudster whose Theranos empire crumbled under deceit - as a visual exemplar of “female bravado.” This irony underscores a deeper philosophical tension: in a world where Nietzsche’s “will to power” demands unyielding drive and risk, empirical evidence reveals women’s general aversion to such arenas, casting doubt on these cherry-picked metrics.
Numerous studies highlight gender gaps in risk-taking and competition. For instance, meta-analyses confirm women exhibit greater risk aversion, with men more prone to competitive escalation. In running races, boys accelerate under competitive pressure - especially in mixed groups - while girls show less response, as field experiments on children demonstrate. Similarly, in economic games, men intensify efforts when a peer pulls ahead, widening performance gaps, whereas women often maintain steady output without ramping up.
Additional research shows men outperform in high-stakes settings, like negotiations where women seek lower raises, or STEM fields where male dominance in math olympiads persists due to competitive selection. And in entrepreneurship, women dodge aggressive scaling for stability, dodging high-risk growth.
Philosophically, this is Platonic cave shadows - fake equality ignoring Aristotle’s natural hierarchies, where complementary strengths (not forced parity) breed real harmony. Even if a woman’s nominally at the helm, key strategic calls come from men who boosted her there. No exceptions. These stats? Sucked from thin air to push a narrative, dodging existential truth for feel-good fluff.
Thanks for this, Ruben. I overall appreciated the message. First it's wonderful to hear more men discuss these issues. Women have been talking about them for a long time by comparison. Two things stuck out for me:
1. I missed the connection between the article's message and the picture of the Thanos founder. Are you saying that if she had more support, her startup would be more successful?
2. While most organizations (banks, tech companies etc) put their leadership team through bias training, I notice you didn't recommend it for VCs. I ask because the element of self awareness for VCs could also be a factor in changing funding outcomes for women.
Practically all of the questions I get during a pitch are about risk. At McK during reviews, we used to have someone who was in charge of flagging bias. That was their whole role. We need that during women pitches so that people can correct themselves mid sentence.
Hi, Donatella. It may make you feel better to know that this is a documented phenomenon—in other words, you are not alone. This is the prevention questions (risk) vs promotion questions (opportunity) divide that, often unintentionally, plagues women and other underrepresented groups. And the more risk questions you get, the less likely you are to get $$:(. In better news, this is the one place that presenters themselves can actually flip to achieve better outcomes. But it takes understanding the dynamic in the first place then practicing how to respond. If you’re interested, we did a free webinar (“Flip the Script”) a few months back on just this topic with a technique to help founders do that. The replay should still be available on LinkedIn, I think. Let me know if you can’t find it and I’ll dig out a link and send directly.
Really insightful piece. As women I think we do this to ourselves, but not intentionally —it is from years and years of cultural programming. I think female founders seeking funding would do well to insist on keeping their presence and power locked-in on the male-filtered perspective of “How big can this get?”
Ruben, I absolutely love your article and I’ve listened to it and read it a couple of times and have made it go viral in my network of men and women.
I find it fascinating that the systemic situation is still existing in the world where there are so many proof points that you point out.
One of my friends is doing a PhD thesis on the topic of TRUST and what I find fascinating is that fundamentally v capitalists are not putting their money in the right areas not because they don’t trust women. It’s because they only trust their own old world which sadly is filled with the same people and it seems that men are much more likely to go to the same old men vs. women who are trying to ideate and fight through the chaos.
Thank you for bringing this to light. It has so many angles to it and as someone who’s in the Canadian tech ecosystem I really want to take this to the next level of understanding among our incubators and accelerators that continue with this model and perpetuate the myths.
My only issue with your article that I wish you would change is a picture of Elizabeth Holmes
Yes, she was a good entrepreneur, but she was not an ethical one and went to jail —so prefer that you would’ve used another picture because sometimes when I’ve sent this article to others, people have just been turned off by her and not read it!
The biggest thing I love about this article is that is written by a man. We need to stop talking in our own echo chambers and have people of all backgrounds support this theory. It’s not for helping women it’s for making money and craving thriving businesses.
Personally, my bias is that the fact that we are not getting as much $$ is actually working out for us in this new world as I don’t think ventures need as much capital as before, and that mindset of being frugal and doing more with less is actually going to help women leaders in this era
but of course we need +++ support as we grow equally.
There are so many great insights here. I'll be referring to this one a lot.
If I have just one comment, it's this: It's all similarity-attraction effect. What do you expect?
"The similarity-attraction effect refers to the widespread tendency of people to be attracted to others who are similar to themselves in important respects."
If we want to level the playing field, we need more diversity in the positions of power. In the startup ecosystem, these are VCs as they control the funds.
Only 14% of women among the VCs' top ranks? Then, seriously, what do you expect?
Call me a pessimist, but I don't expect a rapid change on that account. It's because privilege will defend itself (and power is privilege, see: https://www.infoq.com/presentations/change-self-organization/ ) *and* because the similarity-attraction effect will perpetuate the current situation.
This is one of the most brilliant posts in The VC Corner. A highly relatable one. As a service provider for underserved/diverse founders (people of colour, queer, neurodivergent, and disabled - all of which include also female founders) in STEM, I find this article very compelling and urging the field to refresh and renew, which is long overdue. I made several "quote cards" from the article and I read the article twice just to enjoy the arguments made. I just differ in one point made here: "Neither outcome is malicious." - Not malicious if the decision was based on merit. Given the article's premise is about bias, this statement undercuts the intent with which this article has been written. Except for this particular point, I think this piece should ring the death bell to bias in VC.
Hi, Ruben. I’m so glad to see you posting a story like this. Candidly, I’ve been following you for a while—you offer awesome perspective and info! But I’ve often wondered whether you were taking into account the unique challenges underestimated founders (women, people of color, etc) often face when out there seeking capital, since quite often the same techniques and advice don’t produce the same outcomes for those groups as they do for founders who fit a certain mold, if you know what I mean. It’s so great to see that you do!!!! Thank you.
A bit odd to use Elizabeth Holmes as the article image. She’s an outlier and does not represent the majority of women-led businesses. Featuring it as the main image is contradictory to your main point.
You could make an argument Silicon Valley is hostile to women, but it's actually all of America. The U.S. does not provide federally mandated paid maternity leave, being the only industrialized country without a national paid leave policy. That's not a normal policy and it's indicative of wide sexism normalized in the culture. The women in Tech movement back in the early 2010s basically failed and things have been going downhill now with the assault on DEI. Witness how women are treated on social media? Cards are stacked against you in the U.S. if you are a woman, are non-white or have a goofy (non-American) English accent. In VC both on the partner and startup side, this gets magnified.
This is why I left X. I was following Dan Koe’s advice to be on X and test your ideas there before writing longer content. This is advice from a dude, FOR dude marketers. That was my experience after 3-4 months of posting there multiple times a day - crickets.
Thank you for your thoughtful analysis. It’s a struggle for this of us who have ventured into this arena.
Thank you for bringing awareness to this!!! So important. We are currently building a female-led start-up and these issues are definitely on our minds...
Double? I am being outfunded by my male competitors as much as 20-1. And what happens? They blow through millions with incompetence and inexperience, then get even more money because they “learned.” They learned things I have known already for 20 years.
I am doing something about it so any female founders reading this, buy a Need Money Not Friends shirt and join the movement to raise a 10M VC for female founders. https://needmoneynotfriendsfund.com
It’s amusing to encounter an article touting the outperformance of women-owned startups, only to feature Elizabeth Holmes - a convicted fraudster whose Theranos empire crumbled under deceit - as a visual exemplar of “female bravado.” This irony underscores a deeper philosophical tension: in a world where Nietzsche’s “will to power” demands unyielding drive and risk, empirical evidence reveals women’s general aversion to such arenas, casting doubt on these cherry-picked metrics.
Numerous studies highlight gender gaps in risk-taking and competition. For instance, meta-analyses confirm women exhibit greater risk aversion, with men more prone to competitive escalation. In running races, boys accelerate under competitive pressure - especially in mixed groups - while girls show less response, as field experiments on children demonstrate. Similarly, in economic games, men intensify efforts when a peer pulls ahead, widening performance gaps, whereas women often maintain steady output without ramping up.
Additional research shows men outperform in high-stakes settings, like negotiations where women seek lower raises, or STEM fields where male dominance in math olympiads persists due to competitive selection. And in entrepreneurship, women dodge aggressive scaling for stability, dodging high-risk growth.
Philosophically, this is Platonic cave shadows - fake equality ignoring Aristotle’s natural hierarchies, where complementary strengths (not forced parity) breed real harmony. Even if a woman’s nominally at the helm, key strategic calls come from men who boosted her there. No exceptions. These stats? Sucked from thin air to push a narrative, dodging existential truth for feel-good fluff.
Thanks for this, Ruben. I overall appreciated the message. First it's wonderful to hear more men discuss these issues. Women have been talking about them for a long time by comparison. Two things stuck out for me:
1. I missed the connection between the article's message and the picture of the Thanos founder. Are you saying that if she had more support, her startup would be more successful?
2. While most organizations (banks, tech companies etc) put their leadership team through bias training, I notice you didn't recommend it for VCs. I ask because the element of self awareness for VCs could also be a factor in changing funding outcomes for women.
Practically all of the questions I get during a pitch are about risk. At McK during reviews, we used to have someone who was in charge of flagging bias. That was their whole role. We need that during women pitches so that people can correct themselves mid sentence.
Hi, Donatella. It may make you feel better to know that this is a documented phenomenon—in other words, you are not alone. This is the prevention questions (risk) vs promotion questions (opportunity) divide that, often unintentionally, plagues women and other underrepresented groups. And the more risk questions you get, the less likely you are to get $$:(. In better news, this is the one place that presenters themselves can actually flip to achieve better outcomes. But it takes understanding the dynamic in the first place then practicing how to respond. If you’re interested, we did a free webinar (“Flip the Script”) a few months back on just this topic with a technique to help founders do that. The replay should still be available on LinkedIn, I think. Let me know if you can’t find it and I’ll dig out a link and send directly.
Thanks! In the moment it’s hard to reframe into an opportunity.
Yes, it is. I totally flopped myself in the beginning which is how I know how much practice and prep it takes:)!
Really insightful piece. As women I think we do this to ourselves, but not intentionally —it is from years and years of cultural programming. I think female founders seeking funding would do well to insist on keeping their presence and power locked-in on the male-filtered perspective of “How big can this get?”
LOL
Ruben, I absolutely love your article and I’ve listened to it and read it a couple of times and have made it go viral in my network of men and women.
I find it fascinating that the systemic situation is still existing in the world where there are so many proof points that you point out.
One of my friends is doing a PhD thesis on the topic of TRUST and what I find fascinating is that fundamentally v capitalists are not putting their money in the right areas not because they don’t trust women. It’s because they only trust their own old world which sadly is filled with the same people and it seems that men are much more likely to go to the same old men vs. women who are trying to ideate and fight through the chaos.
Thank you for bringing this to light. It has so many angles to it and as someone who’s in the Canadian tech ecosystem I really want to take this to the next level of understanding among our incubators and accelerators that continue with this model and perpetuate the myths.
My only issue with your article that I wish you would change is a picture of Elizabeth Holmes
Yes, she was a good entrepreneur, but she was not an ethical one and went to jail —so prefer that you would’ve used another picture because sometimes when I’ve sent this article to others, people have just been turned off by her and not read it!
The biggest thing I love about this article is that is written by a man. We need to stop talking in our own echo chambers and have people of all backgrounds support this theory. It’s not for helping women it’s for making money and craving thriving businesses.
Personally, my bias is that the fact that we are not getting as much $$ is actually working out for us in this new world as I don’t think ventures need as much capital as before, and that mindset of being frugal and doing more with less is actually going to help women leaders in this era
but of course we need +++ support as we grow equally.
There are so many great insights here. I'll be referring to this one a lot.
If I have just one comment, it's this: It's all similarity-attraction effect. What do you expect?
"The similarity-attraction effect refers to the widespread tendency of people to be attracted to others who are similar to themselves in important respects."
If we want to level the playing field, we need more diversity in the positions of power. In the startup ecosystem, these are VCs as they control the funds.
Only 14% of women among the VCs' top ranks? Then, seriously, what do you expect?
Call me a pessimist, but I don't expect a rapid change on that account. It's because privilege will defend itself (and power is privilege, see: https://www.infoq.com/presentations/change-self-organization/ ) *and* because the similarity-attraction effect will perpetuate the current situation.
This is one of the most brilliant posts in The VC Corner. A highly relatable one. As a service provider for underserved/diverse founders (people of colour, queer, neurodivergent, and disabled - all of which include also female founders) in STEM, I find this article very compelling and urging the field to refresh and renew, which is long overdue. I made several "quote cards" from the article and I read the article twice just to enjoy the arguments made. I just differ in one point made here: "Neither outcome is malicious." - Not malicious if the decision was based on merit. Given the article's premise is about bias, this statement undercuts the intent with which this article has been written. Except for this particular point, I think this piece should ring the death bell to bias in VC.
Excellent piece - thanks so much for writing it
Hi, Ruben. I’m so glad to see you posting a story like this. Candidly, I’ve been following you for a while—you offer awesome perspective and info! But I’ve often wondered whether you were taking into account the unique challenges underestimated founders (women, people of color, etc) often face when out there seeking capital, since quite often the same techniques and advice don’t produce the same outcomes for those groups as they do for founders who fit a certain mold, if you know what I mean. It’s so great to see that you do!!!! Thank you.