- There is no disparity when it comes to number of rounds
- The trend is decrease in funding from all men teams (-10 points compared to 2019) and increase mostly for mixed teams (+10 points) and women (+2 points) (their numbers don't add up to 100...)
Is it because VC were willing to give less to them because they were women? That there were less well connected? That their negotiation skills didn't match up? That the nature of the projects they choose were perceived as less attractive?
Lots of possible reasons here, and the solutions to choose can be very different depending of the causes.
The article manages to use "just receive 1.3% of VC funding" without stating what amount would warrant no usage of "just". It would help if these kind of equity driven articles made the effort of not counting on the naive heart of the reader to understand what is being said.
Sure, a value is less than another value and a sex difference is mentioned, so the reader is put on the spot to immediately understand that the values should be different. But how different?
Might as well count if there's an imbalance on north-south vs east-west crossings by sex on a city center, and then hope someone feels the need to conclude "but of course, they should be the same!".
This is a useless statistic. What proportion of startups are founded by women? Only with this statistic can we draw a fair conclusion - and it's notably missing from the entire article..
> What proportion of startups are founded by women? Only with this statistic can we draw a fair conclusion
The conclusion is pretty clear and damning for Nordic countries: for WHATEVER reasons women don't get funding.
You can complain that the cause is not fully explained by these statistics. But the conclusion is pretty clear.
Btw, the article does try to explain the numbers more:
> All male teams made up 83% of the startups but they raised 93% of total funding, which means that they raised larger sums.
> For all-female teams, the opposite was true. 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 only skimmed the article. I'm not sure if these numbers show how many women founders got NO funding. I think it's common sense that women founders are very rare. But I don't see how you can take consolation in this explanation.
Would be interesting to see this data by sector. Female founders are much more prevalent in some sectors (eCommerce, Health) than others (Infrastructure, Blockchain)
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.
The article seems to imply gender inequality is a major issue in Nordic countries. The truth is they are light years ahead of their European neighbours in the matter.
so sad that people nitpick on this article, trying to brush it off.
for WHATEVER reasons, women got only 1% of total funding. is that not bad by itself? does it matter that the reason is that there were few women to begin with? that makes it even worse. at least if VC bias was the only cause then this bias would be confined to one domain and easier to fix.
If you believe that being a startup founder is an inherently good thing, then it's bad. But the former is not self-evident. Some pointed out that risk-weighted income of a startup founder might lower than that of someone on a conventional full-time job.
[+] [-] subtypefiddler|5 years ago|reply
Gender | % Companies (#) | % Funding
All men | 85 (1473) | 88.81
All women| 6.35 (110) | 2.21
Mixed | 8.66 (150) | 8.98
Notes:
- There is no disparity when it comes to number of rounds
- The trend is decrease in funding from all men teams (-10 points compared to 2019) and increase mostly for mixed teams (+10 points) and women (+2 points) (their numbers don't add up to 100...)
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] BiteCode_dev|5 years ago|reply
Is it because VC were willing to give less to them because they were women? That there were less well connected? That their negotiation skills didn't match up? That the nature of the projects they choose were perceived as less attractive?
Lots of possible reasons here, and the solutions to choose can be very different depending of the causes.
[+] [-] draugadrotten|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ominous|5 years ago|reply
Sure, a value is less than another value and a sex difference is mentioned, so the reader is put on the spot to immediately understand that the values should be different. But how different?
Might as well count if there's an imbalance on north-south vs east-west crossings by sex on a city center, and then hope someone feels the need to conclude "but of course, they should be the same!".
[+] [-] shalmanese|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] callamdelaney|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Rick1|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] supergirl|5 years ago|reply
The conclusion is pretty clear and damning for Nordic countries: for WHATEVER reasons women don't get funding. You can complain that the cause is not fully explained by these statistics. But the conclusion is pretty clear.
Btw, the article does try to explain the numbers more:
> All male teams made up 83% of the startups but they raised 93% of total funding, which means that they raised larger sums.
> For all-female teams, the opposite was true. 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 only skimmed the article. I'm not sure if these numbers show how many women founders got NO funding. I think it's common sense that women founders are very rare. But I don't see how you can take consolation in this explanation.
[+] [-] gryzzly|5 years ago|reply
> All male teams made up 83% of the startups but they raised 93% of total funding, which means that they raised larger sums.
[+] [-] daleharvey|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ponker|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] plafl|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] treelovinhippie|5 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] subtypefiddler|5 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] pletnes|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] daleharvey|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thinkingemote|5 years ago|reply
Anyone know if that study has been done?
[+] [-] danishdev|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bergstromm466|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mkl95|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thinkingemote|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gjgjjsdoeklklkl|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] supergirl|5 years ago|reply
for WHATEVER reasons, women got only 1% of total funding. is that not bad by itself? does it matter that the reason is that there were few women to begin with? that makes it even worse. at least if VC bias was the only cause then this bias would be confined to one domain and easier to fix.
[+] [-] oytis|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mr_woozy|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danishdev|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]