>Two founders got less funding then they wanted, sexism? The idea for the company seemed reasonable, after all.
Maybe sexism.
The more likely answer is: most founders get less money than they want, in fact most founders fail.
There is under appreciated carnage in the founding game; acknowledgement of this, is one of the things that made PG such a fresh voice when he came on the scene years ago. That realism.
reality is that the founder game is a suckers bet, and one that men take at a vastly, vastly greater degree than women.
Men fail hard, and men themselves internalize the failure(most often) or blame larger forces outside of their control. Either response is fine (they usually don't blame "sexism" but they are plenty happy to blame other conspiracies).
But, when it comes time to talley the toll on men, society is largely quiet, why? Males are disposable.
Women, on the other hand, largely expect to be valued on the mere fact of their personage. They deserve respect for them being them. A noble belief, but one that does not exist in the hyper-competitive modern economy.
>yeah, if I was a professor I'd give your business plan an A-... Does that mean you "deserve" funding? No.
So, I could go on, but until women start throwing themselves into the grinder at the same rate men do, the ratio of men at the top will always be lopsided.
And I say this not as a man that is bitter (I actually won the game against all odds) but I say this as somebody who believes that women's strategies on a whole are better than men's.
That is: men are stupid to take so much risk! It shouldn't be venerated!
The true non-sexism is to realize that women's choices are valid (and probably smarter) and women are more than just "poorly performing men"