\n

People can never<\/span> land on a word to explain what is happening to women and minorities within venture. Are such founders overlooked or undersought? Underestimated and <\/em>underrepresented? Marginalized? Discriminated against? Or just ignored?<\/p>\n

The excuses used to justify these sobriquets are equally scattered. Women received just 1.9% of all venture capital<\/a> funds last year because they are only building beauty and wellness companies; there is a lack of a proven track record; it\u2019s too early, they are too risky, and there is a pipeline problem. Maybe she\u2019ll get married, have a family, and leave the business behind.<\/p>\n

And Black founders raised 1% of venture funds<\/a> because there aren\u2019t enough of them pitching; they are a minority of the population and thus deserve a minority of the funds; their products and markets tap into something only their community<\/a> can relate toward; there isn\u2019t enough traction, they aren\u2019t qualified; or, as one Twitter user<\/a> wrote, they aren\u2019t \u201cmale, pale and from Yale.\u201d<\/p>\n

Ah, yes, this explains it all. Women are too emotional to run companies. One female founder told TechCrunch she heard an investor say he wouldn\u2019t invest in a women-founded company because \u201cshe was annoying.\u201d<\/p>\n

Men, on the other hand, are not annoying. They are competent and qualified, and, as we all well know, sexism and racial discrimination went poof <\/a>after the civil rights and third-wave feminism movements. Since then, decisions toward people of color and women have been based purely on quantitative and provable facts. Obviously.<\/em><\/p>\n