That women and men probably have different approaches to risk and reward, and that instinctively, women may choose more secure career paths over riskier ones.
There is much evidence of this, and not just in tech startups, and it's not merely anecdotal, though I think the overwhelming nature of the anecdotal is pretty convincing on its own. Vastly more men die in the line of work than women do, across many fields, for example. More men than women were pioneers by a couple orders of magnitude. More men choose the military, police or fire department as their career than women by an order of magnitude. More men become astronauts, revolutionaries, and stock brokers.
It seems highly unlikely that these disparities are entirely systemic, or based entirely on our society's norms and expectations; though I'm willing to believe that some of the differences are based on environment rather than genetics, and I hope that if I have daughters they will be given ample opportunities to choose any path they want, including startups (in whatever field startups are interesting in 25-30 years).
My point is that it is silly to suggest that just encouraging girls to take a more active interest in math and sciences will not solve this gender disparity. And, it may even be impossible to "solve" it. Women may just not want to start companies at the same rate as men. If that's the case, there's nothing we can do to "fix" it. I quoted "solve" and "fix" because it assumes that there's something wrong with people who don't want to start companies. I don't know that that's the case. We might be the ones taking unnecessary risks for things that may not be as good for long-term health, happiness, and well-being. After all, once basic needs are met, money doesn't buy happiness, and startups can be a lonely and stressful process that lasts years and may never pay off.
It's one thing to voice this as an opinion but to say it's actually genetic, meaning a biological function of being a female human? No. There is absolutely no evidence to support that. Women were given the right to vote less than 100 years ago, still aren't assigned to units likely to be engaged in combat so I think it would be extremely difficult for them to have held many of the positions you mention en mass. I remember listening to a program on NPR about one of the first female admirals, she said that in the 40s/50s female soldiers were made to take classes on etiquette ...this doesn't exactly set the stage for a woman taking on a risky position.
"It seems highly unlikely that these disparities are entirely systemic, or based entirely on our society's norms and expectations; though I'm willing to believe that some of the differences are based on environment rather than genetics" You're actually saying the reason that women aren't astronauts, revolutionaries and stock brokers is because they are genetically pre-disposed not to want to be in those position? I would again ask for your evidence supporting this.
"My point is that it is silly to suggest that just encouraging girls to take a more active interest in math and sciences will not solve this gender disparity. And, it may even be impossible to "solve" it. " I think you need to speak with more women. I am relatively young, 25-30 range and I can tell you that I was explicitly told math was "too hard for girls" and that I should "try writing, women are good at that" both by teachers, one of which was a woman. As a woman (in my experience) there are several people and indicators as you grow up telling you what women can and cannot do, should and should not do, Do and do not do. We are all socialized in different ways, men are told that "men don't cry" and "a real man does _____." Nature vs. nurture is a heated debate, I've just never heard an argument made that woman are naturally not in to risky behaviors.
"Women may just not want to start companies at the same rate as men. If that's the case, there's nothing we can do to "fix" it." Nearly every one of my female friends would like to start their own business, there are very real barriers and societal norms that make it difficult for them.
There is much evidence of this, and not just in tech startups, and it's not merely anecdotal, though I think the overwhelming nature of the anecdotal is pretty convincing on its own. Vastly more men die in the line of work than women do, across many fields, for example. More men than women were pioneers by a couple orders of magnitude. More men choose the military, police or fire department as their career than women by an order of magnitude. More men become astronauts, revolutionaries, and stock brokers.
It seems highly unlikely that these disparities are entirely systemic, or based entirely on our society's norms and expectations; though I'm willing to believe that some of the differences are based on environment rather than genetics, and I hope that if I have daughters they will be given ample opportunities to choose any path they want, including startups (in whatever field startups are interesting in 25-30 years).
My point is that it is silly to suggest that just encouraging girls to take a more active interest in math and sciences will not solve this gender disparity. And, it may even be impossible to "solve" it. Women may just not want to start companies at the same rate as men. If that's the case, there's nothing we can do to "fix" it. I quoted "solve" and "fix" because it assumes that there's something wrong with people who don't want to start companies. I don't know that that's the case. We might be the ones taking unnecessary risks for things that may not be as good for long-term health, happiness, and well-being. After all, once basic needs are met, money doesn't buy happiness, and startups can be a lonely and stressful process that lasts years and may never pay off.