Female founders are haunted by the misdeeds of their peers

A gender lens on fraud is irrational but such biases are pervasive

- BETH KOWITT

Female founders have been in the American headlines lately—though perhaps not in the way they'd prefer. First, Charlie Javice was found guilty of fraud for misleading JPMorgan Chase in the run-up to its acquisition of her student-finance startup, Frank—a conviction that could land her a maximum of 30 years in prison. Days later, Christine Hunsicker resigned as CEO of fashion tech startup CaaStle after the board alleged financial misconduct; law enforcement is now investigating what Axios has called possibly "one of the biggest startup frauds ever."

I am not particularly sympathetic to either Javice or Hunsicker. But I am to the other female founders who will feel the reverberations of the pair's misdeeds, both alleged and proven. Female entrepreneurs have always had to go above and beyond to prove that they can hack it in a sector that's notorious for doubting them. But now, in every pitch meeting with investors and on every conference stage, they will also have to make the case that Javice and Hunsicker are the outliers rather than the norm.

The idea that all female founders would be conflated with two accused fraudsters certainly seems ridiculous. But it's exactly what happened to a generation of women who tried to raise capital in the aftermath of Elizabeth Holmes' Theranos scandal, a phenomenon well documented by