forbes.com
Women Entrepreneurs: A Surge in Startups, But Persistent Systemic Barriers Remain
The number of women starting businesses reached an all-time high in 2025, but only 1.9% achieve over \$1 million in revenue, highlighting persistent systemic barriers despite the increase in alternative funding.
- How does the funding landscape for women-led businesses compare to that of men-led businesses, and what alternative funding sources are emerging?
- While the increase in women-owned startups is positive, only 1.9% generate over \$1 million annually, a figure largely unchanged since 2019 despite a recent 10% increase. This contrasts sharply with men-owned businesses, revealing a significant revenue gap.
- What systemic changes are necessary to address the underlying issues hindering the growth and success of women-owned businesses beyond simply starting a business?
- The persistent funding gap, with women-only founding teams receiving a mere 2.5% of venture capital in the first half of 2025, indicates systemic barriers. Although alternative funding sources are gaining traction, substantial structural changes are needed for women entrepreneurs to thrive.
- What is the current state of women's entrepreneurship, considering both the increase in startups and the persistent challenges in achieving significant scale and revenue?
- In 2025, a record number of women launched businesses in North America, nearing half of all new enterprises, predominantly from Gen X. However, many remain micro-businesses with limited funding and scalability.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article's framing emphasizes the challenges and persistent inequalities faced by women entrepreneurs, even while acknowledging positive trends. The headline and introduction highlight the ongoing funding gap and the slow progress toward greater equity. While presenting data on increased startup numbers, the emphasis remains on the significant hurdles to overcome, creating a sense of cautious optimism rather than unqualified celebration.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral and objective, relying on statistical data and expert opinions. While terms like 'shockingly low' convey a degree of emotional weight, they are used to reflect the severity of the issue, not to express bias. Overall, the tone is informative and analytical rather than emotionally charged.
Bias by Omission
The analysis focuses primarily on the economic aspects of women entrepreneurship, neglecting social and cultural factors that might influence success rates. While it mentions systemic barriers, it doesn't delve into specifics like societal expectations or biases in hiring practices. Additionally, the article's global scope is limited, focusing heavily on North American data and US revenue figures. This omission limits the generalizability of conclusions.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat false dichotomy by framing the situation as either 'things are getting better' or 'we're still applauding small wins.' The reality is far more nuanced, with varying degrees of progress across different aspects of women's entrepreneurship. The article acknowledges this nuance later, but the initial framing is somewhat simplistic.
Gender Bias
The article's language is largely neutral and avoids gender stereotypes. However, the repeated comparison between men and women-owned businesses inherently focuses on gender, which while necessary for the analysis, could be framed in a more inclusive manner to avoid reinforcing binary categories. The analysis itself is fair and doesn't promote any harmful stereotypes.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights a rise in women-owned startups, indicating progress towards gender equality in entrepreneurship. However, this progress is limited by persistent systemic barriers, such as unequal access to funding and mentorship, resulting in a slower growth rate compared to male-owned businesses. While more women are starting businesses, significant disparities in revenue and funding remain, suggesting that the positive impact is currently limited.