Fred’s Sex Question
May 24, 2007
Today Fred Wilson posted about VC-backed women entrepreneurs. Being one, I thought I’d weigh in.
First, let’s be clear about the numbers. Forbes says (emphasis mine):
“According to the Center for Women’s Business Research, the number of firms run by women grew at nearly twice the rate of all U.S. firms from 1997 to 2004. But a new study released this month by VentureOne, a unit of Dow Jones, shows that the number of women-owned or women-run businesses backed by venture capitalists has been on a slippery decline since 2002.
“To be clear, the number of venture-capital-backed,female-owned firms wasn’t very big to begin with. In 2002, only 7.55% of all venture-backed companies had women as chief executives. But in the first half of 2006, that number fell to 3.7% (the lowest percentage since 1997). The number of venture-backed companies with women in top management bottomed out at 29.7%–versus 34.8% in 2002.”
We received only 3.7% of the deals, and – even worse – only 2.7% of the dollars. My experiences anecdotally support those tremendously sad statistics. Just this week I was at one of our VC’s portfolio company conference. Other than the fund’s non-investment staff, there were two women. The second was a VP of Marketing. At another investor’s conference earlier this year the statistics were the same. In the many rounds I’ve raised I’ve pitched to a woman exactly twice.
Why? I don’t know. But here are two thoughts.
First, the VC-entrepreneur relationship is based on trust. (At least one way – the VCs have to trust that the entrepreneur is going to do well with the investment.) Most of the entrepreneurs I talk with view trusting a VC as 1) a nice-to-have and 2) naive. I’ll save that for a later post. The main point here is that VCs do have to trust the people managing their companies. I believe that people tend to trust those who they understand. It’s a lot easier to understand people who are like oneself. VCs are (white) men, so they’re more likely to trust (white) male entrepreneurs.
Second, expanding to a cultural divide, I think that most women are ill-suited to raise venture capital. Most VC pitch meetings are a jousting match. The first time I raised capital, I had a potential angel investor who wanted his VC friend to look at us and opine. I called the VC every day for about three weeks, and he kept ducking me. Finally, his secretary slipped and said “I’m sorry, he’s on the phone.”
“I’ll wait,” I replied.
That VC kept me on hold for almost an hour. Finally, he picked up the phone, and proceeded to drill in and belittle me. After too much of this, it became clear to even me that I wasn’t go to get anywhere, and i purposely, by mistake, referred to him as a vulture capitalist. “Ah,” he said, with a smile in his voice, “like I didn’t know I kept you on hold for 45 minutes. I come by my arrogance honestly, I was a cardiac surgeon before a venture capitalist.” And then, since I had established my machismo, we made nice. Many months later, I pitched that VC’s firm. Although he was health care and our deal was tech, he joined the meeting, recounted the story with gusto and recommended to his partners that they should back anyone with my persistence and “ability to go toe to toe.” It’s an extreme example, but it does illustrate the competitiveness in the environment. Women just aren’t brought up to be so in-your-face.
For me, the fact that there are so few women entrepreneurs is a huge positive. I’m memorable – I suspect that VCs I pitched for TurnTide in 2003 are 50 times more likely to remember me today than a male with as good a company. Being 6’ tall puts me on equal footing. Growing up surrounded by boys and spending my first 25 years consumed by highly competitive athletics taught me to be comfortable in the boys’ world without being a boy. But, although the status quo might be good for me, I can’t be selfish on this issue and wish that things stay the same.
Women and men are – at the peak of the bell curve – wired differently. We give birth, and we typically bear more family responsibility than men. We tend to be better with people and worse with machines than our husbands. But the sum of all of these differences, and more, cannot explain even half of the 26x difference between the number of men and women in whom venture capital invests.
Whatever is going on isn’t fair and it hurts everyone. Great women with great companies that fit the investment profile for venture capital are being passed over because they don’t fit the cultural profile. So the companies can’t take full advantage of their opportunities. And investment returns are suffering because good deals are being missed.

Ms. Dunclafe,
I was assigned a case study based on the former Destiny WebSolutions, Inc for an Information Technology class at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia where I am a business major. Overall the case study briefly focuses on the implementation and usage of the Pattern Language Server that Destiny developed during your tenure as CEO. I was wondering if you had a few moments to answer a few questions regarding the outcome of Destiny’s Pattern Language Server.
Was the technology ever incorporated into a large scale platform? What became of the technology after the corporate dissolution? What long-term goal was the Pattern Language Server angled towards in achieving? Do you feel that if given the proper funding when Destiny still existed, that the Pattern Language Server would have been a success in helping to structure future corporations?
I do apologize for the long-winded questions, and would greatly appreciate and response you might be able to provide.
Thank you,
Derrick
PS. I do understand if you are unable to provide an answer as you must be extremely busy with business, personal, and family responsibilities.
Comment by Derrick — June 10, 2007 @ 11:24 am
Hi Lucinda, Great story. Even better observations. I’ll have to use that “Vulture Capitalist” line sometime. – Michael
Comment by Michael Maier — January 16, 2008 @ 10:56 am
Hi Lucinda!
I was very interested to read your comments about the differences in men and women vis-a-vis VCs and funding. You’re correct in thinking that brain structure plays a large part in this discrepancy. Women’s brains are structurally different from men’s in more ways than we ever dreamed of. Now that we have f(MRI)s and all the results published from their studies, it has become a whole new world of information and possible leverage for women.
To become successful in business, women have traditionally tried to become more like men. I read your point in the article and hurrah for you.
Now, men, it’s time to cover your eyes. Wouldn’t it be great for women in business to be like stealth bombers? By that I mean, to know how our brain strcutures are different and how to leverage them for best business results?
Lucinda, you played the testosterone hormone card with that VC. It was “King of the Hill” in all its force and simplicity. Women are culturally and physiologically conditioned to build relationships. Consider the peaks and the valleys of estrogen output. Even that part of the brain that recognizes facial expressions is larger in women and has more neronal connections!
It’s ironic that neuroscience (traditionally a man’s field) is bringing such leverage to women. Now, if only we can get the word (and latest research) out! As a psychologist/neuropsychologist, I now considered it to be my life’s mission with corporations.
Comment by Dr.Gail Bubenick — July 29, 2008 @ 10:11 am
Excellent and inspiring talk at DreamIt today. Glad to see your wrote about the gender discrepancy within the Vulture VC story, when you told it today, I was thinking about that. It can be difficult to be in the minority, especially to the one of the vocal minorities calling for change. Thanks for writing about it!
Comment by SiNae — August 4, 2009 @ 7:41 pm