Why men get rich solving women's problems and why this is not economically sustainable
- Dr Audrey-Flore Ngomsik
- May 25
- 10 min read
Updated: 6 days ago
When Flo Health achieved Europe's first femtech unicorn raised 200 Million Euros at a $1 billion valuation, it should have been celebrated as a breakthrough for women's health innovation.[1]
Instead, it exposed a troubling paradox that sustainability and CSR leaders cannot ignore: the most successful solutions for marginalized communities are consistently built and controlled by those outside these communities.
As people who have spent decades helping companies integrate diversity, equity, and sustainability into profitable business strategies, we see this pattern as more than just market dynamics, it's a systemic failure that undermines the very principles of inclusive, sustainable capitalism we're working to build.
The sustainability imperative: Why this matters beyond business.
This isn't merely about venture capital fairness, it's about the fundamental sustainability of our economic systems. When we systematically exclude the voices and leadership of those closest to critical problems, we create solutions that are inherently incomplete and unsustainable.
The pattern reveals itself across industries with startling consistency:
Vlisco has dominated the "African fabric" market for 175 years from the Netherlands, while African textile entrepreneurs struggle to access global markets, a clear example of extractive rather than regenerative business models.[2]
SheaMoisture was built on the hair care wisdom of Black women, yet its most significant growth came after acquisition by Unilever in 2017 for an estimated $1.6 billion. Unilever acquired SheaMoisture's parent company, Sundial Brands, on November 27, 2017. This acquisition was part of Unilever's strategy to expand its portfolio in the multicultural beauty sector, targeting products for Black and ethnic minority consumers.
A commercial controversy erupted after the brand released an ad that many felt inadequately represented its core customer base, black women with diverse hair textures. Critics argued that this approach seemed to dilute the brand's focus on its original demographic, and accused them of "white-washing" the product. This backlash prompted SheaMoisture to apologize and withdraw the ad, acknowledging that they failed to properly represent the community that has historically supported them. The brand emphasized its commitment to ensuring that Black women's hair journeys are recognized and valued in future campaigns. It illustrated the disconnect that can occur when outsiders control culturally specific brands, and demonstrated exactly why diversity in decision making matters for long-term economic sustainability.
Urban Outfitters sold over 20 product lines using the "Navajo" name and designs mimicking Navajo tribal patterns, including clothing, jewelry, underwear, and accessories. The Navajo Nation sued the retailer in 2012 for trademark infringement and violation of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act. Although the exact financial terms of the 2016 settlement remain confidential, court records reveal that Urban Outfitters sold tens of thousands of "Navajo" branded units annually (30,733 units in 2008), rising to 78,231 in 2009, and 49,182 in 2010. The Navajo Nation was also entitled to seek damages of at least $1,000 per day for each type of infringing product sold, potentially amounting to millions in damages. Following the settlement, Urban Outfitters agreed to a supply and license agreement to collaborate authentically with Navajo artisans on future products.
This case highlights how large corporations have profited substantially (likely millions of dollars) from culturally specific designs without initial permission or compensation to the source community.[3]
Adidas Xhosa Sneakers (South Africa): Adidas released sneakers featuring the Xhosa word uluntu (meaning “community”), but inaccurately described it as “human race” and failed to sell the shoes in South Africa. This misrepresentation and commercial exploitation of a cultural symbol without meaningful engagement with the community drew criticism.[4]
Fenty Beauty stands as a notable counter-example, but its success under Rihanna's ownership makes the broader pattern even more glaring by comparison.
These examples reinforce the recurring pattern where culturally specific products or traditions are commodified by outsiders or large corporations, often sidelining the original creators or communities.
They also highlight the importance of authentic collaboration, respect, and equitable benefit-sharing to avoid perpetuating harm and exclusion.
They illustrate what we call "extractive innovation", where value is created by taking from communities rather than empowering them to create value themselves.
The numbers don't lie
Here's how investment capital flows globally, and why it matters for sustainable development:
In 2024, $368 billion global VC funding has been attributed around the world.[5]
For each 100$ given:
male-only founding teams captured 84$
while female-only teams received just 2.5$
mixed-gender teams 14$
female-led startups generally receive less than half the average deal size of male-led startups ($5.2 million vs. $11.7 million)
The funding disparity also intensifies as startups scale, with female-only teams securing only 1.8% of Series C+ funding.[6]
This gap widens further for intersectional women founders. For women who are also Black, Latina, or from other minority groups, getting money becomes even harder. They face double the challenges; people doubt them because they're women AND because of their race or background.
The venture capital data reveals the scope of the problem:
Female founders received only 1.9% of all VC funding globally in 2022
Black entrepreneurs received less than 1% of all VC funding in 2022, despite representing 13% of the U.S. population
Latina entrepreneurs received just 0.43% of VC funding between 2009-2020
LGBTQ+ founders received approximately 1% of VC funding in recent years.[7]
The situation gets so desperate that some women have actually pretended to have (white) male business partners or even invented fake (white) male bosses just to get investors to take them seriously.
A striking example of gender bias in entrepreneurship comes from the founders of Witchsy, an online art marketplace. Penelope Gazin and Kate Dwyer, frustrated by repeated condescension and dismissive attitudes from developers and potential partners, invented a fictional male co-founder named "Keith Mann."
The difference was immediate and stark: while Penelope Gazin and Kate Dwyer often struggled to get timely responses or were addressed patronizingly ("Okay, girls..."), emails from "Keith" were met with prompt replies, respect, and offers of additional help.
As Kate Dwyer described,
"It was like night and day."
The mere presence of a male persona led to their business being taken more seriously, exposing just how deeply ingrained gender bias remains in the startup world, even to the point where a fake male colleague could open doors that were closed to real, capable women.[8]
An anecdote known worldwide is the story of a female-led Indian fintech startup where the founder reportedly created a fictional male CEO to overcome investor biases, as male leadership is often perceived as more credible or capable in tech sectors.
Meanwhile, Flo Health's male founders easily raised over $50 million to build their period-tracking app, reaching a billion-dollar value.
This isn't just unfair, it's economically inefficient and unsustainable.
The health equity connection: when funding gaps become a matter of life and death
This funding disparity isn't just about business, it literally affects health outcomes.
Medical research funding reveals the same troubling patterns:
Women's health research has been historically underfunded, with conditions affecting primarily women receiving disproportionately less research investment.
Endometriosis, affecting 10% of reproductive-age women worldwide, receives only $7 per affected woman in research funding, while erectile dysfunction receives $35 per affected man, despite affecting fewer people overall.
Black women's health faces even starker disparities.
Despite having maternal mortality rates 3-4 times higher than white women in the United States, research specifically focused on Black women's health outcomes receives minimal funding.
Uterine fibroids.
Uterine fibroids disproportionately affect Black women, with data indicating that up to 80% of Black women will develop fibroids by age 50. This prevalence is significantly higher compared to the general population, where fibroids affect a smaller percentage of women overall. Black women not only develop fibroids more frequently but also at an earlier age, and tend to experience larger fibroids with more severe and debilitating symptoms such as pelvic pain, heavy menstrual bleeding, and bladder issues. Despite this high prevalence and severity, uterine fibroids have historically received limited research attention and funding relative to their impact, especially compared to conditions affecting broader populations.
For example, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has only recently begun to increase funding and focus on fibroid research, with legislation such as the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Uterine Fibroid Research and Education Act of 2021 aiming to allocate $30 million annually from 2021 to 2025 to expand research, improve public education, and enhance data collection on affected groups
This bill underscores the gap in research and awareness despite fibroids affecting millions of women, including an estimated 26 million Americans with fibroids and about 15 million experiencing severe symptoms.[9]
A real-world example illustrating this disparity is the experience of many African American women who often face delayed diagnosis and treatment. Studies show that African American women with fibroids frequently wait four or more years longer than white women to seek treatment, leading to more advanced disease and higher rates of hysterectomy, 2.4 times more often than white women.This further highlights the limited attention this condition has received despite its substantial burden on this population.[10]
Sickle cell disease, which predominantly affects people of African descent, receives approximately $286 per patient in research funding, while cystic fibrosis, which primarily affects white populations, receives $3,300 per patient, despite sickle cell disease affecting three times as many Americans.[11]
These funding gaps perpetuate health disparities and demonstrate how systemic bias in resource allocation affects the most fundamental aspects of human wellbeing.
The parallel between business funding and medical research funding is unmistakable. Both systems consistently undervalue problems primarily affecting women, people of color, and other marginalized communities. This creates a compounding effect where:
Communities lack the resources to build solutions for their own problems
Research into their specific health needs remains underfunded
When solutions do emerge, they're often controlled by outsiders who may not fully understand the community's needs
The cycle perpetuates, as successful outsiders become the model for what investors expect.
Reframing the problem beyond individual success stories
Some argue this is simply about "the best product winning" or that successful outsiders "open doors for others." These arguments miss the fundamental issue: when pattern becomes practice, individual success stories mask systemic failures.
The structural barriers are clear:
The problem isn't that outsiders can't create valuable products for different communities. The problem is that insiders face structural barriers that outsiders don't encounter:
Access to capital: Women and minority entrepreneurs consistently report difficulty accessing investor networks, particularly problematic when investors can't understand problems they haven't experienced.
Credibility assumptions: Research shows investors are more likely to ask women about potential risks and failures, while asking men about potential growth and success, a pattern that systematically disadvantages female entrepreneurs.
Network effects: The venture capital world remains overwhelmingly male and white, creating natural advantages for founders who share similar backgrounds with decision-makers.
The CSR and sustainability imperative
From a corporate sustainability perspective, this represents a massive market failure with far-reaching consequences:
Innovation gaps: We're systematically excluding the most knowledgeable voices from solution development
Market inefficiency: Capital isn't flowing to the most informed entrepreneurs
Social unsustainability: We're perpetuating systems that extract value from communities rather than empowering them
Economic instability: Concentrated wealth and opportunity create unsustainable economic structures.
Strategic recommendations for sustainable change
As CSR and sustainability professionals, we must champion systemic solutions:
For investors: Implement diversity metrics and accountability measures. Question why culturally-specific markets lack intersectional leadership. This isn't just ethical, it's risk management.
For corporations: Prioritize supplier diversity and authentic community partnerships. Move beyond extractive models toward regenerative business practices that empower rather than exploit.
For policymakers: Address structural barriers through targeted programs supporting underrepresented entrepreneurs, particularly in sectors serving their communities.
For industry leaders: Recognize that sustainable business models require inclusive leadership. The most sustainable solutions come from those who understand problems through lived experience.
The business case for change
This isn't charity, it's strategy. Companies that embrace authentic diversity and inclusion in their innovation ecosystems will:
Access untapped markets more effectively
Develop more sustainable and culturally resonant solutions
Reduce reputational risks associated with cultural appropriation
Build stronger, more resilient business models
The real question
This isn't about denying anyone's success or suggesting outsiders can't contribute meaningfully to different markets. It's about recognizing a pattern that demands explanation:
Why do those closest to the problems consistently struggle to access the resources needed to build and scale the solutions?
Until we address the systemic barriers that create this pattern, we'll continue to see the paradox of outsiders succeeding in markets designed to serve communities they don't represen, while the members of those communities remain locked out of the capital and networks necessary to build their own solutions.
The stakes are too high, particularly in health and wellness, to accept this as simply "how markets work." When funding patterns literally affect life and death outcomes, challenging these systems becomes not just about business equity, but about human dignity and survival.
The most telling statistic may be this: if the funding disparity were reversed, and women and minority entrepreneurs received 98% of venture capital while white male entrepreneurs received 2%, we would immediately recognize this as a crisis requiring urgent intervention. The fact that the current disparity seems normal reveals just how deeply these biases are embedded in our systems.
These examples provoke critical questions:
Why do male founders often dominate female-focused or culturally specific markets, even when the products and services primarily serve women or minority communities?
How do systemic biases in funding and leadership opportunities exclude women and ethnic minority entrepreneurs from scaling their ventures?
What role do cultural norms and investor biases play in shaping who gets to lead and benefit from these markets?
How can sponsorship and structural changes in investment ecosystems ensure that women, especially from underrepresented ethnic groups, receive equitable support and recognition?
Flo Health’s rise as a male-led femtech unicorn underscores the urgency of these questions. It challenges us to rethink how success is defined and who is given the resources and platforms to lead in sectors deeply tied to identity and lived experience. Without addressing these systemic barriers, culturally specific sectors risk perpetuating exclusion rather than fostering true representation and empowerment.
Conclusion
The Flo Health phenomenon isn't just about one successful app, it's a mirror reflecting our economic system's fundamental unsustainability. When we consistently exclude those closest to problems from building solutions, we create extractive rather than regenerative business models.
True sustainability requires more than reducing carbon footprints; it demands creating economic systems that empower all communities to solve their own challenges while sharing in the value they create.
The question isn't whether we can afford to change these systems, it's whether we can afford not to.
In an interconnected world facing complex challenges from climate change to health disparities, we need every voice, every perspective, and every innovative solution we can access.
The path forward is clear: move from extractive to regenerative business models, from exclusive to inclusive capital allocation, and from systemic barriers to systemic empowerment.
This is the true work of sustainable development in the 21st century.
As we often say: "Your problem may not be sustainability per se, but the solution is." The funding disparity crisis is no exception, and the sustainable solution lies in building economic systems that recognize and reward the expertise of those closest to the challenges we face.
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2024/07/30/fertility-tracking-app-flo-health-raises-200m-at-a-1b-valuation/
Comments