Is the Funding Game Still Rigged Against Women in Business?
In a LinkedIn post by Ingrid Murray, founder of a stealth startup and experienced advisor, raises a controversial issue: should female entrepreneurs apply for grants using a male partner’s name to increase their chances of securing funding? Though this may sound drastic, the practice is not without historical precedence, with female authors like Charlotte Brontë and Mary Ann Evans (George Eliot) using male pseudonyms to publish their works.
The post emphasizes how female entrepreneurs in 2024 are still grappling with similar biases in the business world. Despite making significant strides, the odds of securing growth capital remain stacked against women-led businesses, which receive a fraction of the funding their male counterparts do. This bias drives many women to contemplate applying for grants in their husbands’ names—an action that some consider a practical work around, but others deem a disappointing regression.
Ingrid Murray’s post received mixed responses, with some women expressing solidarity and others reflecting on the internal struggle between adopting this strategy and continuing to fight for fair treatment. Gwen Myslinski, a fractional CMO, expressed anger at the system, stating that “using a man’s name to get ahead is messed up, but I get it. When the system’s rigged, sometimes you play dirty.” Her fiery response echoed the frustrations of many, suggesting that women are often left with no choice but to find unconventional paths to success in a male-dominated arena.
Sally Chuku, a brand and marketing strategist, shared her own experiences of being addressed as if her husband were in charge of her business. “I get messages meant for my husband in my business email, even though he isn’t part of my work. It’s frustrating,” she said. This reflects a broader issue of gender bias that persists in professional settings.
The conversation also highlighted the historical and ongoing inequalities faced by women in the financial world. As Bev Fawdington noted, women couldn’t get their own credit cards until 1974, and financial agreements often required male approval. For Fawdington and many others, the fact that women are still considering using male proxies for funding indicates just how deeply these biases are entrenched.
But does resorting to these tactics diminish women’s influence in the long run? Victoria Ansell, an M&A lead advisor, weighed in, pointing out the potential dangers of relying on this workaround. “If funders don’t take you seriously enough to view you as a backable founder, does that mean your influence in the business is diminished for the longer term?
While some, like Charles Gardiner, jokingly suggested applying with a “fake mustache,” the underlying message was clear: the need for such strategies reflects a broken system. Gardiner argued that women should be breaking glass ceilings, not using male identities to be taken seriously.
As the conversation unfolds, it highlights the ongoing challenges women face in the entrepreneurial landscape. It raises crucial questions about the state of gender equity in business and the need for systemic change in 2024.
Join the Conversation! What are your thoughts on this issue? Is using a man’s name to secure funding a smart strategy or a step backward? Share your opinions in the comments below!
-Staff Reporter
