Roxanne Bras Patreaus on LinkedIn summarized this well "Wow. I'll say it. This article *and* the study are bananas. Come with me on this tour of red flags:1. The article describes an experiment where subjects are "shown video of the same start-up business idea presented by a conventionally hot actresses and one who is more plain."Conventionally hot?! Why stop there. How about "smoking hot?" I'm giving this 🚩🚩We shouldn't use casually objectifying language in a professional context. Our VP of marketing is effective. Our VP of marketing is not, "rocking a great bod."2. The article goes on to opine that, "The study does not touch on whether companies founded by attractive women are better investments, however. Maybe it’s a good strategy?"Wait, we're endorsing this as a strategy?! Here's where I get to 🚩🚩🚩Determining capital allocation based on women's attractiveness is not a strategy, unless I guess your fund invests in bets on beauty pageants.3. But 🚩🚩🚩🚩 for the ending. "So maybe the solution is for VC companies is to hire fewer jerks?"No!While I see a lot of jerk behavior in this article, the solution isn't to call people jerks or to hire fewer of them.The solution is to acknowledge there are many biases at play in the workplace and then come up with tactics to ensure decisions aren't made based on those biases.For example, investors can have a standard set of questions they ask all founders, regardless of gender (or hotness?) to fight the tendency that men get asked more about potential than performance.Finally, this article gives the impression that "hot women" easily raise funds: Less than 3% of VC funding goes to all women founding teams.And articles like this don't help us move the needle."
I'm not sure what is worse, that this study exists or the men's comments about it on this YC thread.
As a female founder who is fundraising, this represents why we have opted to bootstrap for as long as possible. A lot of the VC world feels like a bros club. This just nails home the sentiment.