[pravda]

I suppose we will have to look at the future returns of VCs like "iFundWomen".

If they get higher returns then "sexist" old-school male dominated VCs, then we will have some strong evidence that "sexism" is getting in the way of big returns.

[pmiller2]

Why do the returns have to be higher, and not just comparable?

[pravda]

A fair point!

I am not sure what the returns are for VCs, with either male or female founders.

Certainly 'goop.com' has done very well. Theranos, not so well.

It would seem to me that if women founders are being actively discriminated against, investing in women founders should produce returns that are higher than normal.

Of those 2.2% of female-led startups, what has been the return to investors? I have no idea if anyone has ever looked into that.

[pmiller2]

Assuming that women are just as good at founding companies as men, I don't see how funding women at higher rates should produce higher than normal returns. Higher returns would imply that VCs are able to tell the best female-lead companies apart from the rest (and apart from the more marginal male-lead companies). It's not clear to me that many, if any of them can do that, given the number of successful companies that have been passed on by multiple VCs before finding their first investment.