More Women In Tech Discussions

The blogo-twitter-sphere erupted this weekend in response to an article in the WSJ on Friday titled Addressing The Lack Of Women Leading Tech Start-ups. I missed most of it as I was pretty heads down this weekend going through the final page proofs of the upcoming book “Do More Faster.”

TechCrunch / Arrington wrote a post Too Few Women In Tech? Stop Blaming The Men. Fred Wilson followed with Women In Tech and Women Entrepreneurs Discussion. My partner Jason Mendelson did a video interview on the subject with EZebis.

Lots of controversy but lots of useful discussion.  Which is good.

  • Brad:
    Posted this on Mr. Arrington's site:
    If one reads all the comments here and classifies the discourse in pros/cons, hatred/kumbaya, I think it might give an insight why women tech entrepreneurs do not want participate and indulge in this sheer show of ridiculousness started with the initial blog piece (not because they do not have the chutzpah nor because they do most have fear of taking it on) posted by Michael Arrington: "And what it is this: statistically speaking women have a huge advantage as entrepreneurs, because the press is dying to write about them, and venture capitalists are dying to fund them."

    Show me the data Mr. Arrington that led to your hand-waving sweeping remarks — not some anecdotal evidence. Another example, you state that the press is dying to write about this and then connect that statement on how VCs make decisions to fund a company — really! do you have statistical data to show this causality? If you do you have solved a real problem.

    Mr Arrington — you also state there is a lack of women entrepreneurs and that's what leads to less funding. Can you run a statistically valid analysis for this?

    Mr. Arrington — as Bernard Baruch once said, every person has right to an opinion but does not have a right to his own facts.

    Mr Arrington: Dissing people like @fredwilson and others who are involved in solving this issue such as @bfeld and expressing your frustration through your blog just makes you just another one of those bloggers who think having easy access to a blog is a platform to emote opinions disguised as “facts”.

    ~Rini Das

    • jobo12

      After I read the tech crunch piece – I had to physically get up and leave my computer I was so irate over it and the comments. It's been a few hours – my blood pressure had dropped almost back to normal.

  • Danielle Kellogg

    The question should not only be why so few female CEOs of tech companies. It should also be why so few female execs in tech companies (I do not have figures, but I would guess the figures go hand in hand) . One leads to the other. There is an abundance of female talent so we should question what's behind it. I am happy to see this discussion become active.

  • Being a father of 4 daughters with one just starting a high-tech company…this really got my attention…you should check our the NCWIT Channel on at as we have interviewed over 50 high-profile women entrepreneurs…Larry

  • Here's another one worth reading that takes on Arrington's post on TechCrunch.

    • Your sites and other site's and Fred Wilson's discussions are on having a conversation.
      But Arrington … Alas! another story.
      Given that, Michael Arrington likes to stir up controversy just to see what happens — I did not mean to make this personal — but somehow cannot stop labeling Arrington as a Supersize Perez Hilton of the tech community.

  • Maybe the place to be if you are a woman and want to be a tech CEO is Boston. As xconomy noted this month, "Massachusetts has a much higher proportion of female founders (27 percent) than California (6 percent), New York (7 percent) or the national average (8 percent); and nearly one-third of Massachusetts startups surveyed have all-female founding teams (31 percent)."