Let me give an alternative explanation, championed by Philip Greenspun for women in science jobs: Startup jobs suck, and women are better at recognizing it (scroll past the description of science jobs to "Why do American men (actually boys) do it?"):<p><a href="http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science" rel="nofollow">http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science</a><p>There are no economics by which working at a startup makes sense over a Facebook or a Google. You work longer hours, and make substantially less. Unless you're a founder, even in the event of a successful exit, the stock options will generally barely cover the cost of the paper they're written on. Early employees don't come out competitive with Google until you see billion-plus dollar exits.<p>Philip's claim was that men tend to make decisions based on testosterone-fueled machismo, and go into areas considered "hard-core" like theoretical math, which rationally, are a waste of time and make no sense to study. As he phrases it, young men make the decision based on:<p>1. young men strive to achieve high status among their peer group
2. men tend to lack perspective and are unable to step back and ask the question "is this peer group worth impressing?"<p>This matches my anecdotal experience as well. Women tend to make more rational decisions, and pursue fields with a higher return-on-investment. Men tend to make irrational decisions, and either realize it later (with colossal failures, such as science jobs), or rationalize it later (e.g. "I learned a lot" without really comparing to the alternative -- a job with formal mentorship processes, and both pay and work/life to allow time for pet projects and formal study).<p>If Philip's claim is correct -- and it does match my anecdotal experience -- the way to draw more women into startups would be to make them appealing to rational players. Typically, an early employee ends up with a fraction-of-a-percent equity at exit (and at best, low single-digit percent at joining). Equity is allocated in numbers (5000 shares) rather than percent, in a successful attempt to confuse.<p>Is it a full explanation for 2% vs. 28%? Probably not. Bias is surely part of the equation as well. I have no idea what the split is, but I'd be shocked if either explained the gap fully, and I'd be equally shocked if either were insignificant.