Slanted story?
July 19, 2000 9:26 AM   Subscribe

Slanted story? Does anyone really believe that most VC firms wouldn't back a solid business plan only because a woman ran the company? The argument sounds like parity for the sake of parity, without merit.
posted by owillis (4 comments total)
Only if your implicit assumption is that no women have decent business plans.
posted by Mocata at 10:25 AM on July 19, 2000

I think this is a very real issue. Women still earn much less than men do for the same amount of work - it makes sense that they'd also receive less attention from VC firms.

There internet economy is dominated by it's own good ol' boys network, and it's foolish to think otherwise. The VC money flows to those who have white skin and male reproductive organs.

While this system benefits me, it isn't fair and it's not right.
posted by aladfar at 12:08 PM on July 19, 2000 [2 favorites]

What a load of BS. Even the study's own home page says the discrepancy is because women generally don't apply for VC funding, not because Evil Capitalism is out to oppress women.

This sort of "article" is precisely why Salon's readership is so low.
posted by aaron at 7:33 PM on July 19, 2000

IMHO, I think it also falls in the same trap of "why don't girls participate in sports/computers/whatever", and blaming "male-dominated" society. In the past this may have been true to some extent. But using sports as an example, maybe they're just not interested. Its what makes us human.
posted by owillis at 12:11 AM on July 20, 2000

« Older TWC Givin' Away Free RePlay TV units.   |   For you Survivor fans, Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments