Laughable. A number of extracts:
“The economic case for women entrepreneurs is made clear. The Rose Review identified that £250 billion in growth could be achieved if women entrepreneurs were funded to the same level as men. Adjusting for inflation, that figure is now a staggering £310 billion.“
[J4MB emphasis. Well, cover me in pink paint and call me Barbie. In a similar vein, recent research by a team of female biologists at the University of Leighton Buzzard – as yet unpublished – identified that if meerkats could operate drones they could survey the surrounding areas for predators instead of having to stand on their hind legs being laughed at by the other animals. They (the women, not the meerkats) are currently seeking government funding to train meerkats in drone operation, Keir Starmer is known to be very encouraging about the idea.]
“Of note, the Committee concludes that voluntary initiatives have failed to date [J4MB emphasis. Stupid initiatives generally fail, I have noted over many years.] and therefore co-ordinated, government action [J4MB emphasis. In plain English, taxpayer’s money.] is needed to unlock the full economic potential of female entrepreneurs for the UK economy.”
More fun:
“Root causes identified for female entrepreneurship
The statistics are clear and epitomise the challenges facing female entrepreneurs:
- Just 20% of businesses are female led.
- 75% of university spinouts are all-male teams
- 86% of angel investors and 85% of senior investors in venture capital are male.
- The British Business Bank’s Small Business Equity Tracker found that, in 2023 alone, all-male founder teams raised £6.5 billion, more than three times the amount raised by all-female founder teams over the past decade (£2 billion).
- In 2024, just 2% of equity investment went to back a female founder—down from 2.5% in 2023—while all-male teams received over 80% of the venture capital allocated—despite female-led businesses outperforming them.
- The figures are even starker for women from an ethnic minority background; only 10 Black female entrepreneurs received venture capital funding between 2009–19 (0.02% of total VC funding).” [J4MB emphasis. Damn those racist patriarchs for making the barriers so much higher for “women from an ethnic minority background” than for white women.]
Needless to say, none of the six bullet point describes “challenges facing female entrepreneurs”. They describe what one might reasonably expect given that the cohort of people in question – wimmin – are (a) highly risk-averse when it comes to investing their own (or other women’s) money, and (b) less likely than men to generate the sane business proposals which those providing venture capital might be willing to support, and (c) less likely to be prepared to invest the insane amounts of time and energy required to have any realistic prospect of becoming a successful entrepreneur.
The fun continues:
“However, female founders also often face biased questioning during investment rounds about childcare, [J4MB empasis. Questions about childcare would be perfectly reasonable but I very much doubt anyone today would risk asking them.] discriminatory funding decisions, and sectors popular with women— such as femtech, beauty, and wellness — are often dismissed as ‘not being scalable’. ” [J4MB emphasis. This may be attributed to the bleedin’ obvious fact that “sectors popular with women” are not scalable. Amirite?!!!]
I need to lie down in a dark room for an hour or two…
If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’.
We shall shortly be posting this piece on our X channel.
Our YouTube channel is here.
Justice for Men & Boys 
The Rose Review was carried out by Alison Rose, former CEO of Natwest. She pushed her luck too far when she bragged to BBC business correspondent Simon Jack about her role in ‘debanking’ Nigel Farage.
The ‘Invest in Women’ taskfarce appears to be the successor to the Rose Review. And it seems like Rachel plans for the taxpayer to be footing the bill. Is ‘social engineering’ on her CV?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/chancellor-everyone-can-do-something-for-womens-equality
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can’t find the links now but there has been quite a few research projects on small businesses. For a start there are a huge proportion that are in “trades” which we know (again from 40 years of attempts to get women into them) do not attract women. Then there are the reasons for choosing to be self employed or start ones own business. For men at the top of the list is variations on “being my own boss” for women its variations on “better work/life balance”. The latter of course never includes doing more work. Unsurprisingly the research finds men are far more likely to grow their business and take on employees and so from an investment and economic growth point of view give greater opportunities for others and potential to become the drivers for growth. Typically women remain sole traders or micro businesses offering “consultancy or training” or services to persons. Which of course makes sense if, as is the case, their priority is sidestepping the “rat race” to achieve that “work/life” balance. Which of course brings us right back to Hakim’s Preference Theory .
All else being equal the result of the readily observable and researched preferences and choices made will result in a. more male entrepreneurs and b. male entrepreneurs far more likely to grow their business into larger businesses. And of course because they will often be taking much greater risks male entrepreneurs are statistically more likely than females to fail. This latter seized on by feminists as proof women should be funded. But of course its simply a function of the ambitions and risks of the male entrepreneurs compared to the lack of ambitions and therefore conservative risk averse behaviors of the females. The latter of course so much less likely to throw up new and exciting industries as a result.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Beyond laughable indeed! Even when women get what they say they want they are still unhappy and want more! Tragically hysterical!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Most women and all feminists have insatiable appetites.
LikeLike
To my knowledge there have been special helps from central Gov. since the early 1990s in the UK. As these have apparently achieved nothing it would seem highly unlikely this will achieve anything. Ironically for reasons trumpeted by feminists themselves. Risk aversion, lack of confidence, imposter syndrome, work/life balance have, in recent years, been joined by menopausal and menstrual “brain fog”, anxiety, “mental health” and even ADHD and Autism as reasons why women need “support” in work and management. Logically a group so beset by such a parade of needs is unlikely to produce “go getting” entrepreneurs!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Well said, Nigel. It is astonishing that anyone can claim in the same belief system:
(1) Women can do anything that a man can do (and in high heels);
(2) Women need special attention for a whole host of things, (including understanding that when they were given legal enforcement of equal pay back in 1970, it was reasonable to enforce equal retirement age).
(3) Women cannot succeed in an open capitalist market without having taxpayers fund them regardless of whether the market thinks their business idea is viable.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Indeed, Nigel. The woeful Harriet Harman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Harman, the first Minister for Women (1997) in the first of Tony Blair’s three Labour administrations, inntroduced support schemes for female entrepreneurs. If any women became successful after such support, she and other feminists would have been shouting about them from the rooftops. None ever did, predictably. The sort of person who seeks government support is not made of the stuff from which entrepreneurs are made.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“There was no such thing as a paid position for people trying to invent a flying machine. So, the Wright brothers made a modest living selling bicycles. It was the carefully managed proceeds from this small business that financed all their experiments, solving the problem of manned flight in a methodical and rational manner.”
F Roger Devlin ‘The Wright Brothers, and the Wives They Did Not Have’.
https://frogerdevlin.substack.com/p/the-wright-brothers-and-the-wives
LikeLiked by 1 person
I realise that incompetent bank directors, and owners of appalling railway companies can draw on taxpayer money but in what universe can anyone described as an entrepreneur bleat about needing taxpayer’s funds?
…Oh, I get it,thanks to a helpful AI. If the entrepreneurship is to live high off the taxpayer instead of building a business that actually needs risk for the reward, then, apparently it would be reasonable to call them an entrepreneur.
And to moan about how many of those funding economic growth are men, when women have a greater disposable income (partly because they spend men’s money, I realise, and partly because women take legally enforced finance from their ex having cheated and divorced him)… I’m getting incoherent with the stupidity of anyone to fall for this nonsense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Douglas, great points. Of course women won’t invest their money in women’s harebrained schemes, but more men should. These women are leeches, one and all.
LikeLike
“There are few drivers of innovation and creativity in female life. Women all know that the boys will come calling anyway.”
Roy F Baumeister ‘Is There Anything Good About Men?’
LikeLiked by 2 people
The late, great, Christopher Hitchens, Vanity Fair (2007), Why women aren’t funny:
https://archive.vanityfair.com/article/2007/1/why-women-arent-funny
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ha!! Particularly liked his joke about the placenta and brain cells. Try cracking THAT one today, eighteen years on from 2007….
Here’s a little something from yours truly, part of Chapter 2 of ‘Ms Patterning’, the chapter introducing Prof Iain McGilchrist’s book ‘The Master & His Emissary’.
“Western women, childless, forced to artificially compete with men, are heading to the anomie experienced by western man for centuries, since the Industrial Revolution cut us from our natural roots. The ardent hostility of feminism towards beauty and the transcendent (qualities which are admired by males) suggests a jealousy, an envy of something which is beyond their grasp, qualities which they cannot appropriate for themselves and utilise for their own base purposes. In their literal, humourless world, where everything must have defined meaning, they also hate metaphor, and all that it stands for. The (testosterone-sensitive) right brain hemisphere has a huge facility for metaphor, giving it a broad, complex field of association [Master & His Emissary, page 373]. There are many consequences of the left hemisphere’s incapacity for metaphor, and the right hemisphere’s affinity for it. The importance of metaphor is that it underpins all forms of understanding of science and philosophy, no less than literature and art [Master & His Emissary, page 70]. Males can access a transcendental world which the feminist will never experience. It seems pointless to lower the bar for STEM and other human endeavours, favouring women in tertiary education and employment opportunities, then expect astounding results – astounding in any positive sense of the word, that is. This typical failing of the oestrogen-sensitive left brain is picked up by McGilchrist throughout his book, one such example on page 50 – Left hemisphere thinking is de-contextualised, and tends towards a slavish following of the internal logic of a situation. This permits too rapid a capitulation to theory.”
In ‘Knowing Women – a Feminine Psychology’ Irene Claremont de Castillego tends to agree: “The masculine of a woman is inferior to that of a man. It is apt to be less original and less flexible. She tends to be impressed by organisation and theories, which she frequently carries to excess. She then becomes hidebound by regulations, and obsessed by detail.”
In ‘Paradoxes of Progress’, Gunther Stent reckoned that the ‘Eureka!’ moment of scientific discovery was very much related to having a sense of humour, and being able to see, and appreciate, a joke.
Looks like Rachel Reeves, Alison Rose et al will remain committed to pushing water uphill. They’ve got theory and dogma to follow.
I wonder when Rachel last laughed at a good joke..?
LikeLiked by 1 person
These are the sort of female-led businesses we’ll be inundated by.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20z7xx6nr4o
Fraudulent ‘qualifications’ to apply 44% hydrogen peroxide, when anything above 0.1% is illegal. Quote: “We know we shouldn’t be doing this, but there’s no oversight, and the profits are insane.”
In a similar vein, any word on Michelle Mone, aka Baroness Bra, and the £122million she owes the British taxpayer..?
LikeLike