1. 1
Is Gender Discrimination in the Tank?
Amanda Morrow
SOC498: Dr. Laura Steck
York College of Pennsylvania
Abstract: The role of gender in the business world has been a focus of a great amount of
literature of late. Studies have often discussed the role of gender in business, more specifically in
accessing venture capital, how women view entrepreneurship, and the potential discrimination
faced by women. However, no article has examined the way to access capital through the pop
culture phenomenon docu-series Shark Tank. The aim of this article is to first study the existing
literature describing disparities faced in the business world between men and women. Then
important themes regarding women in entrepreneurship will be identified and tied to a content
analysis of Shark Tank. Overall, Shark Tank exemplifies and popularizes the discrimination and
challenges female business owners are often faced with while trying to access capital.
Shark Tank premiered in August 2009 as a new reality show with the premise of
highlighting the struggles faced by new entrepreneurs in a recessed economy. The show features
five panel members called “sharks” who are incredibly wealthy investors. These investors hear
an hour long pitch from the entrepreneur and then decide if they would like to invest or “go out.”
If all five sharks go out, the entrepreneur leaves empty handed. The drama of the pitch and most
of the exchanges between the sharks and the entrepreneur is edited out for time. However, the
remaining portions that air exemplify gender as a theme of the exchanges between sharks and
entrepreneurs and even between the sharks themselves.

2. 2
Literature Review
In previous studies there has been a great deal of research relating to women in
entrepreneurship. It is well documented in these studies that there are notable disparities between
male and female entrepreneur’s abilities to access capital and funding, there are clear network
disadvantages tied to being female, and there are seemingly limitations on the types of
businesses investors feel women are “allowed” to operate. Several of the studies reviewed were
international which provides strong evidence to the fact that these problems are not only faced by
American women, but by women in business worldwide.
The first well documented disparity that favors male entrepreneurship over female is the
differences in access to funding. Starting a business is a difficult task. Not only does it require
vast determination, knowledge, and expertise, but it also requires a steady stream of funding to
continue to operate and grow. Often, traditional means of finance, such as bank loans, are not
plausible for an entrepreneur to obtain because of unproven start-up status. Getting funding
generally means some form of venture capital, be it equity or debt. However, in order to obtain
this capital, the entrepreneur must pitch their business to investors. According to Kaplan (2014),
investors are 60% more likely to invest in a pitch given by a male, rather than a female, despite
identical content (38). This striking statistic illustrates the inequalities faced by female
entrepreneurs. It is also estimated that women-owned businesses are 16% less likely to attract
private investment dollars than their male counterparts (Wiederhold 1). The belief that women
are incapable of starting their own businesses not only hinder female entrepreneurship, but also
has a detrimental effect on the economy as a whole due to potentially lost productivity. An entire
portion of the population is being seemingly shut out of self-employment simply because of
traditional gender roles.

3. 3
Gender roles are an engrained part of American society. They refer to the roles we play,
identities, culture, beliefs, and even our interactions with each other (Thebaud, 2010). The
traditional gender role for the woman is soft and feminine. She is supposed to take care of the
house and kids. If she does work, it is in an appropriately feminine industry such as childcare,
beauty, or food. The traditional gender role for the man is seemingly the opposite. He is strong,
tough, and supports the family financially. Reconciling these engrained and deeply traditional
gender roles with the changing times and new freedoms available to women has proven to be a
difficult task and has greatly affected women in businesses’ ability to be an entrepreneur. As a
result of various factors, all relating to traditional gender roles, men are 1.61 times more likely to
be an entrepreneur in their life (Thebaud 298), with white men being the most likely group to be
self-employed (Sena et al. 475).
With the immense amount of support backing the notion that men find venture funding
more achievable than woman, it is surprising that research suggest women who do receive
outside funding for their businesses have higher repayment rates than men. Interestingly enough,
however, they are also charged higher interest rates on average because female entrepreneurs are
considered higher risk (Brana 93).
In addition to disparities in being able to receive funding, the vetting process for funding
providers (banks, venture capital firms, etc.) is also different depending on the entrepreneur’s
gender. In general, a male seeking funding for his business venture will be asked not only about
his business but also about his family life. For men, being married and having a family unit is
considered a sign of social, and therefore person, stability, which is a good sign for an investor.
However, a female entrepreneur in the exact same position will often be required to extensively
demonstrate her knowledge of business, in addition to answering questions about her family life.

4. 4
For a female entrepreneur, conversely, having a family is seen as a negative because it will
presumably take focus away from her business and force her to attempt to achieve the always
illusive work-personal life balance (Brana 90). These stereotypes are a result of the gender roles
in our culture and greatly hinder the abilities of women in business to get funding because banks
often see them as having other commitments that could be deemed more important. As a result of
these discriminations and constant challenges women often start their businesses with less capital
than their male counterparts, which puts their businesses at a disadvantage (Brana 88).
Access to funding is not the only disparity between men and woman in business. Women
also suffer from network disadvantages compared to men. Networks, connections, and social
capital are all incredibly important when starting a business. Knowing the right people and
having the right advisors can truly make or break a business. According to Lutter (2015), “social
capital also facilitates the sharing and transfer of knowledge within teams and among co-
workers” (330). Lack of social capital and lack of collaboration with the right people can be
detrimental to a business. However, social capital is an incredibly difficult factor to measure in
an entrepreneur. Generally the accepted measures of human capital are education, age, and
experience (Shaw et al. 192). As a result of complicated factors including glass ceilings, familial
responsibilities, and others women generally have less workplace and managerial experience
than their male counterparts (Thebaud 289). Since, they generally lack this experience it further
impacts their social capital and the ability for investors to take female entrepreneurs as seriously
as male entrepreneurs.
One would hope that social capital and networking do not matter with a great product,
great service, and great passion. However, the fact is that all businesses need capital to grow at
one point or another. If certain entrepreneurs, despite having a great business, cannot get funding

5. 5
to grow, it becomes important to have connections to call on to get capital infusions. The fact is,
the more social capital a person has, the better their reputation in the business world will be, and
the easier it will be for them to succeed (Shaw et al 200). As a result of these impediments it
makes it even harder for female entrepreneurs to thrive strictly because of their gender and the
implications of it. “Gender differences are both the cause and effect of social structures” Shaw et
al. 191). Traditionally, men and women have different management techniques and different
thought process to solve problems, because of this the less traditionally methods often employed
by women are viewed as weaker, simply because of their differences. Instead of using these
differences to create better business practices, they are alienated to further ostracize women in
business.
In addition to a lack of available funding and network disadvantages, female
entrepreneurs are often limited in the types of businesses society (and investors) feel they are
able to start. There is a great amount of disparity between male and female entrepreneurs by
gender and industry. Female entrepreneurs often start businesses in “feminine” industries such as
beauty, children, toys, etc. Rarely do female entrepreneurs start STEM (science, technology,
engineering, mathematics) businesses. In fact, 40% of the patents held by women in Spain are for
household products (Perez 501). There is a definite gendered trend in business literature
illustrating that most female entrepreneurs start businesses to solve the typical problems they
face, which happen to be “mommy problems.” This type of gendered commerce promotes the
idea that gender roles are central to selling certain products (Downs 4). Unfortunately for female
entrepreneurs, “women are confined to activities considered appropriately feminine…that are
neither capital intensive nor particularly profitable” (Brana 94). As Brana points out, the types of
businesses women start often relate to household problems they typically face. As a result of

6. 6
many different factors women have a hard time getting capital to start/fund their businesses and
therefore if a woman does decide to start a business she generally does it with less capital than a
male entrepreneur would. Also, these types of domestic lifestyle businesses do not grow
exponentially or create exorbitant returns for the entrepreneur.
When women participate in gendered commerce it is simply an extension of what is
called “doing gender” (West et al. 1987). Doing gender basically refers to roles each gender is
conditioned to play throughout their lives. For instance, little girls are often commended on how
pretty they are and if they’re being quiet they are commended for being “good.” Little boys on
the other hand are encouraged to play, speak up, and be very energetic to prepare them to
become appropriately aggressive men. These types of gender roles are reinforced throughout
childhood and into adulthood which lead many women to have a hard time being assertive
enough to start a business; and if a woman does start a business she is automatically more likely
to fail because of the lack of availability of resources to her. Female-owned businesses lack
government contracts, social capital, and are constantly faced with structural and bureaucratic
discrimination (Downs 8). If a female entrepreneur does dare to break gender stereotypes and
start a business in a male-dominated field, her chance of failure increases even more drastically
(Lutter 347).
Accounting for all the aforementioned inequalities in the way entrepreneurs are treated
simply based on gender, the biggest question that needs answered is why? Why do these
disparities exist? Why are they so strongly rooted in American culture and around the world?
One important potential reason that entrepreneurship doesn’t seem to be a suitable career choice
for women is that the word “entrepreneur” itself is gender masculine (Lewis 253). Perhaps
potential female entrepreneurs cannot reconcile the conventional version of entrepreneurship

7. 7
with their self-identity. Many common aspects of entrepreneurship and professionalism, when
asked to describe them, are gender masculine including detachment, expertise, and tenacity
(Lewis 257). Also, since an entrepreneur’s self-identity and social identity have to be reconciled,
a female may have a harder time seeing herself as a legitimate entrepreneur when society doesn’t
(Lewis 253). Often, women also hold themselves to a higher standard of required knowledge and
competence before attempting a project, which in this case leads women to feel they lack the
credibility to be an entrepreneur (Thebaud 291). For example, Thebaud found that men were
2.27 times more likely to feel they are competent enough to be an entrepreneur than women,
despite having similar skillsets (300).
Another potential reason for the differences in male and female entrepreneurship is the
undisputable fact that there are gender differences. For example, females are more risk-adverse
than their male counterparts, which often automatically deters them from the risky profession of
entrepreneurship. Women also traditionally have to give preference to raising families while the
male in the family works to financially provide for the family. Because of this traditional gender
role, women as whole are usually less motivated by wealth and career advancement than males.
Also, females hold themselves to a higher standard of competence than men so they often feel
they lack the necessary skills to start, and succeed, at their own business (Brana 90).
A final potential reason for the inequalities in male and female entrepreneurship is the
simple fact that women usually know of these disparities before they begin their quest to start a
business and because of that, often they simply decide not to try (Sena et al. 468). Women
generally lack the collateral to get loans for their businesses. They often lack the social capital
the business world requires for success. Many women tend to have family commitments that

8. 8
hinder their ability to focus on a growing business. Finally, because of gender roles and
stereotypes it is hard for women to see themselves as a CEO (Sena et al. 470).
Through understanding and acknowledging disparities and beginning to understand why
they exist businesspeople can begin to rework the implied meanings of professionalism and
entrepreneurship to make it an accessible term for women to relate to. In theory, many women
want to be entrepreneurs for the flexibility, the ability to not be bound by glass ceilings and pay
gaps, and to escape workplace discrimination (Downs 7). But, unfortunately these problems and
more still seem to be huge challenges for females wanting to explore entrepreneurship as a career
choice.
Method
The goal of the research for this project is to conduct a content analysis of the television
show Shark Tank to examine gendered patterns of investment and business. For the purpose of
this research I viewed seasons 1-4 of ST, inclusive. In total, I watched 64 episodes at around 44
minutes long. I developed a spreadsheet to code the information of every entrepreneur featured
including name, gender, age, business, type of business, what amount the entrepreneur was
asking for, what offers (if any) were made, gender of the investor, and if/which offers were
accepted/declined. In total I coded information on 263 businesses with single male entrepreneurs,
single female entrepreneurs, co-ed groups, and single gender groups. In addition to the basic
information coded, I also took detailed notes on each entrepreneur and their interactions with the
sharks, and the shark’s interactions with each other.
Contestant Demographics: Single Entrepreneur Group
Male 121 37
Female 59 14
Co-ed N/A 32

9. 9
Themes and Discussion
As previously mentioned in the literature review section, women owned businesses are
more likely to fail because of lack of access to funding, gender discrimination, and a lack of
capital in the real world. Also, women typically pursue feminine businesses rather than STEM
businesses because they generally aren’t seen as capable to run these types of businesses and
can’t get funding due to discrimination and risk aversion. Female entrepreneurs also suffer from
network disadvantages and tend to interact and build their networks differently than men, which
hurts them in the long run. All of these factors come into play when looking at Shark Tank
through a gendered lens, but in ways different than one might expect.
Shark Tank
Shark Tank is a reality show that premiered in August 2009. The goal of the show is to
help entrepreneurs affected by the economic downturn get funding from experienced investors to
help grow, start, or save their business. Each episode features a panel of five investors called
“sharks.” All of the sharks ever featured on any researched episode are as follows:
 Kevin Harrington: a home shopping mogul
 Jeff Foxworthy: redneck comedian and entrepreneur
 Robert Herjavec: technology mogul
 Kevin O’Leary: notorious billionaire venture capitalist
 Mark Cuban: owner of the Dallas Mavericks, technology entrepreneur
 Daymond John: fashion mogul and icon

10. 10
 Lori Greiner: the “queen of QVC”
 Barbara Corcoran: real estate mogul
The show desperately tries to promote itself as helping the entrepreneurs that seek to be
featured. However, the gender differences on the show are apparent in the way sharks
interact with entrepreneurs pitching their ideas, depending on their gender. As a recent
Jezebel article points out the show “waffles back and forth between advocating for female
empowerment and reinforcing antiquated ideas of what women can and should do” (Dries 2).
For example, male entrepreneurs on Shark Tank never seem to be asked about work/home
life balance, while female entrepreneurs are constantly hounded about it. The sharks
undoubtedly question the commitment of female entrepreneurs to their businesses much
more than males because they often feel women have other things they should worry about.
Kevin O’Leary in particular likes to question the loyalty of entrepreneurs to their businesses.
Interestingly enough O’Leary rarely invests in female entrepreneur’s businesses, despite
having made his millions from a lucrative toy deal, an industry female entrepreneurs on
Shark Tank are often in. The “sharkettes” Lori and Barbara often invest in female
entrepreneurs, even if they aren’t in their industry expertise range. Daymond John often
invests in women, but this is probably due to his fashion expertise. Interestingly, Cuban
invests in a significant number of female products (Dries 5). Dries also points out that most
of the female entrepreneurs on Shark Tank are stay at home moms who created a product to
solve a “mommy problem” and seem to view their business as a sort of lucrative hobby.
These types of lifestyle businesses can be great—however they often don’t need much of a
capital infusion to start and grow and they aren’t particularly profitable, certainly not
profitable enough (usually) for an investment from one of the sharks.

11. 11
Notable Statistics
Despite overwhelming evidence in the literature review of women being denied
funding more often than men for a variety of reasons, it was fully expected that my research
would find this would be the case in the Tank as well. My findings actually support the
complete opposite. Women were more likely to get deals than men on Shark Tank, especially
if in an appropriately feminine industry. However, women often faced other discrimination in
on Shark Tank that will be detailed later.
Gender Statistics in the Tank
Important Statistics
Companies with at least 1 female entrepreneur 39%
Number of co-ed groups 27.8%
Number of single female entrepreneurs 56.7%
Number of female groups 15.3%
Companies with at least 1 female present in a female industry that got a deal 85%
From these statistics it is clear to see that companies with at least one female entrepreneur
in a feminine industry have a very good chance of getting offered a deal with one or more of the
sharks. In general, roughly half of all pitches get offered a deal.
As refreshing as it may seem that women and minorities on Shark Tank are seemingly
more likely to be offered a deal than men for their businesses, if the interactions of the episodes
are closely examined, a pattern of gender discrimination will be found in the interactions despite
it not showing up in the numbers. A simple explanation for women’s phenomenal numbers in the
Tank is that most of the women featured have great products that solve household problems that
are easy to relate to. These “mommy problems” appeal to a wider range of people than STEM
businesses often pitched by males on Shark Tank that don’t get offered deals because the

12. 12
business is too hard to relate to for the average person. As with in the “real world,” in Shark
Tank world women’s success rates of getting capital go down dramatically if they stray from
appropriately feminine industries.
Content Analysis
From the seemingly contradictory findings that women actually appear to get more deals
on Shark Tank than men it may appear that Shark Tank is a great way for female entrepreneurs to
get capital infusions. However, what the statistics are lacking is detailed accounts of the
harassment and discrimination those same female entrepreneurs had to go through to get their
deals. Throughout the four seasons of Shark Tank viewed it became clear that there were a few
consistent themes in behavior patterns of, and towards, the female entrepreneurs. The easy to
identify themes were beautiful women in skimpy clothing getting great deals from the male
sharks, the Sharkettes (Lori and Barbara) playing up their gender to get the entrepreneur to take
their deals, crying and showing of emotion by the contestants, which often helped a few sharks
decide to come back into negotiations and offer a deal, and male sexism towards female
entrepreneurs, and in some cases, the female sharks.
It is very clear even from the very first episodes of Shark Tank that sexism is alive and
well in the Tank. Many times male sharks seem to not simply focus on a female entrepreneur’s
pitch and business, but they also seem to be very focused on the looks of their potential business
partners. In the third episode ever of Shark Tank this phenomena became very clear with the
pitch of Marian Cruz, a beautiful entrepreneur with the idea of a TurboBaster cooking device.
While her pitch wasn’t impressive as it was clear she had done little research in preparation for

13. 13
the Tank the sharks still complimented her by calling her “adorable.” However, that is a
demeaning insult to give a grown woman as it implies attributes such as child-like,
unknowledgeable, and unprofessional. But because she was “adorable” she ended up getting
offered a deal.
The trend continued in episode 107 when Leslie Haywood, a beautiful 30-something
entrepreneur in a very sexy dress pitched her business, Grill Charms. Barbara, the only female on
the panel at the time, immediately went “out” of the deal. The male sharks, however, went crazy
for not only Grill Charms, but also for Leslie. Barbara ended up acting as a sort of referee as the
males fought for her attention. Barbara even went as far as calling the male sharks “high school
boys” and pointing out that they are only this interested because she’s pretty. Leslie, of course,
got an outstanding deal with Robert Herjavec.
A similar experience happened when Kirsten Hathcock of ModMom Furniture entered
the tank. A beautiful woman in a low cut dress sends the male sharks into a feeding frenzy for
the chance to work with her after the only female on the panel goes out. Kirsten, also, ends up
getting a deal with Robert Herjavec.
A discussion of beauty helping to get deals on Shark Tank wouldn’t be complete without
mention of Paige Dellavalle and Ashley Jung. In episode 425 these two beautiful young ladies
were pitching their jewelry business in barely there dresses. Daymond even went so far as went
to say, “I’m going to have to close my eyes because you’re gonna convince me.” They end up
getting a deal with Mark and Lori.
Some of these female entrepreneurs seemed to work their feminine beauty to their favor
to get a deal, which is in a sense empowering while at the same time incredibly demeaning.

14. 14
Nikki Pope, of Toygaroo, also used this strategy to get a deal. She spent much of her pitch
flirting with Kevin O’Leary which resulted in her getting a generous offer from him and Mark.
Also, Megan Cummins of You Smell chose to come to her pitch in a cleavage bearing shirt. She
pitched a soap company with no sales and Barbara made a comment about writing her off as
soon as she walked in, but she slowly changed her mind. Megan went home with a deal with
Robert. Without conventional attractiveness playing in their favor, it is hard to say if any of these
women would have gotten a deal offered.
In addition to female entrepreneurs giving pitches highlighting their best assets in hopes
to make deals with the sharks, often the female sharks on the panel play the “girl card” to get
entrepreneurs to say yes to their deals. For example, in episode 405, Aly Lessor of Cozy Bug,
pitched her grow-able kids clothing that she created after being fired from her sales job for not
being able to breast pump. For Lessor, entrepreneurship was a way to solve a “mommy problem”
and give her flexibility. This gave a sense of entrepreneurship by necessity, rather than the pure
desire to be an entrepreneur. This concept was central to Thebaud’s study, previously mentioned.
The sharks love her idea and her story and they fight to get a deal with her. Lori points out that
she’s the only female on the panel that really understands and that a “female will be the best
partner.” However, she is unable to convince Lessor, who decides to go with Daymond.
In episode 109, the sharks are pitched Virtusphere, which is the ultimate video game.
Barbara says that it is such a boy toy and she couldn’t invest because she didn’t understand it.
They men pitching it ended up not getting a deal due to other issues. Jill Quillin of Lipstick
Remix pitched her homemade lipstick product in episode 113. Without a doubt Jill had a great
idea and a great product, however without Barbara stepping in a saying how great of an idea it
was, the male sharks were clueless because they couldn’t relate to it. After Barbara convinced

15. 15
the others this was something a woman would use, she ended up getting a deal with Kevin
Harrington, Barbara and Daymond. Throughout the series there are countless comments made
about products being for females and that only a female would understand how to market certain
products.
In episode 304, Mark comments that he doesn’t like the girl power trend on ST because it
seemed that all the promising female entrepreneurs would only say yes to Lori or Barbara. In
episode 312, Lori offered a worse deal than Kevin O’Leary for a piece of Nail Pak, but after
pointing out that Kevin O’Leary knows nothing about nail polish, Lori’s deal was accepted. In
this case it seems that Lori, instead of downplaying female stereotypes, played them to her
advantage. This could be looked at as a way she is performing gender in her life by bidding on
traditionally feminine businesses that she has extensive knowledge of due to the performing of
her female gender for her entire life.
The male/female power struggle is exemplified throughout the series as the sharks
constantly fight to play up or play down gender roles depending on what it suits them to do so.
However, for male entrepreneurs pitching female-centric businesses, their lack of the female
touch often hurts them in Shark Tank because they are using statistics, instead of solving a
problem that directly relates to them. In business on the cusp of being feminine the sharks seem
to offer deals more when there is a female partner involved. Perhaps this is because doing gender
and gendered commerce works both ways and violating these norms are generally unsettling
enough to put off investors.
There is also a pattern of the female entrepreneurs on Shark Tank being driven to tears or
other strong emotional responses because of the sharks’ harassment. For example, in episode
408, Ginell Mills of Cool Wazoo completely failed in her attempt to give a compelling

16. 16
presentation and after all the sharks were out, Mills broke down crying. Lori jumped back in and
offered her a deal. Daymond pointed out that, “her tears got Lori,” and Robert asked, “Did you
invest in her because she cried?” Lori stood by her offer.
Later that same season Suzie Taylor of Bibbitec broke under the strain of the sharks
ridiculing her idea. When the sharks asked her why she didn’t have any sales she snapped, “I’m
not selling because my kids come first.” Needless to say, she left without a deal from anyone.
Deidrea Haysel of Hot Momma Gowns also broke down in tears after the sharks harassed her
about her company’s financials and general idea. After she cried and noted that she felt
personally attacked, Barbara swooped in and offered her a deal, while all the men make fun of
Barbara for her actions. Deidrea declined Barbara’s offer.
Another notable presentation was that of Dominique McClain Barteet. While, Bareet
never cried, her presentation was incredibly professional and well received by the sharks,
however, every time they asked her a question she didn’t know she put herself down in a self-
deprecating manner. It was clear she felt she lacked the skills to be a successful entrepreneur.
After much pumping up from the sharks, she made a deal with Daymond for her business One
Sole. This lack of confidence in female entrepreneurs appears to support Thebaud’s findings
citing that women feel less capable to be a successful entrepreneur because they hold themselves
to a higher standard of competence than their male counterparts.
The fourth obvious trend in gender relations on Shark Tank is male sexism. It is apparent
in the way the sharks treat not only the contestant female entrepreneurs, but also their fellow
female sharks. There is a lack of respect, vulgar and insulting comments, and an overall power
struggle between males and females in the Tank. This seems to stem from a lack of respect for
each other and the heavy competition for such limited resources.

17. 17
There are many examples throughout the series of sharks being overtly sexist towards the
budding entrepreneurs. For instance, in episode 412, Megan Gage of Hot Tot, gave an incredible
presentation for her children’s hair care line. She was an incredibly beautiful and professional
woman with great answers and a great presentation. However, after she mentioned her master’s
degree in social work, Robert incredulously remarked, “oh so you’re not a hair stylist?” Also, as
Connor Riley and Samantha Meis were pitching their idea of Mistobox, the sharks couldn’t seem
to focus on the opportunity being pitched but rather harassed the two about if they were dating or
considering doing so as Riley and Meis desperately tried to keep the topic of conversation their
business.
In episode 308, Litter, a high-end body jewelry line was pitched by two young women.
The women were designers but had taken a fledgling business and made it decently successful.
However, Mark and Daymond figured out that they simply wanted to be designers and made
them a low offer, which they accepted. After acceptance, Barbara pointed out that they would’ve
never made that offer to a male designer and they low-balled them because they were women.
This is another great example of doing gender. These women were soft spoken and seemed to be
afraid to speak up for themselves. They were bullied by the male sharks into taking a low offer
because the men kept repeating how they were just designers and implied that they didn’t have a
place on the business end of things.
Not only do the sharks exhibit sexist towards the contestants pitching their businesses,
but the contestants themselves are also sometimes sexist towards the sharks and the sharks are
sometimes sexist among themselves. Michael Sang, a young male entrepreneur pitching his
business Plate Topper had a great product and presentation but in the negotiating phase seemed
to want to avoid doing a deal with Lori at all costs. He was very rude towards her and seems to

18. 18
almost refuse to speak with her or acknowledge her, because of this he blows a deal worth ten
times what he was asking for. Eventually he takes her lessened offer, but only after all other
sharks were out. This could perhaps be explained by Sang not wanting to take an offer with Lori
due to perceived challenges a woman in business would encounter, most notably in this case
network disadvantages, that could, in theory, hurt his product’s success. However, this complete
lack of respect for Lori in this encounter was truly appalling.
Another example is shown after Barbara makes Frank Scozzafava and Adam DiSilvestro
a deal for their business Mix Bikini. Instead of being grateful for her connections and experience
they say, “thank you for the woman’s touch.” The male sharks are also seemingly sexist towards
their female panel members. At one point during a pitch about an energy drink for cougars
(attractive older women) O’Leary turns to Barbara and exclaims that she used to be a cougar.
Daymond also exhibits sexist behavior towards his female counterparts, at one point even going
so far as calling Lori a “vicious backstabbing shark.”
Throughout the series it is clear that gender differences are a common theme and whether
it is organic or producer-driven, sexism and gender-driven differences seem to always be at the
forefront of negotiations with the sharks. As a result of this, Shark Tank waffles between helping
female entrepreneurs by statistically giving them more deals than their male counterparts and
exemplifying the discrimination and stereotypes females in business, and in general, face on a
daily basis. The question boils down to the individual entrepreneur, is it worth it? Is it worth
getting an equity capital infusion but potentially being ostracized, harassed, and hounded about
work-life balance? This comes down to how badly the entrepreneur needs money and
connections, for some women it may be worth it, for others it certainly wouldn’t be.

19. 19
It is clear from the exploration of the four themes presented in the Content Analysis and
from the previous research that gendered commerce is prevalent on Shark Tank. If it can be
deduced that Shark Tank is a micro chasm of what capital funding is truly like, this lends support
to all the previously cited findings. Women do suffer from disadvantages stemming from gender
differences and stereotypes in society. Women do want to be entrepreneurs to have flexibility
and to break through the glass ceiling, but find this hard to do in practice. Women in business do
perform gender by starting businesses related to them, thereby making them feminine. Despite
the fact that having at least one female partner in the Tank increases your chances of getting a
deal, the disparities noted in the literature review still apply to the entrepreneurs of Shark Tank.
Conclusions
While most of the literature about female entrepreneurs points out the challenges and
disparities in funding male versus female businesses, it appears that Shark Tank has the opposite
effect. Women pitched businesses appear to have greater success on Shark Tank than male
pitched businesses. However, this increased chance of success appears to come at the cost of
harassment from the sharks about not only the entrepreneur’s product, but also about their looks
and lifestyle choices. Some potential reasons for the seemingly better chance of a woman getting
funding than men on Shark Tank are that most of the products on Shark Tank are consumer
products that solve “mommy problems,” and who better to pitch a “mommy” product than an
actual mommy? Also, many of the women that pitch on Shark Tank are not career entrepreneurs,
they usually have started a lifestyle business out of necessity because of discrimination in the
workforce or out of boredom because they are stay at home mothers.
It is also important to discuss the limitations of the research done. First, this research does
not account for the screening process that Shark Tank uses to choose its entrepreneurs. It

20. 20
potentially could filter out more males than female with un-investable products. Second, the
actual pitches given and the ensuing question and answer session are actually hours long. The
producers take that film and cut it down into roughly ten minute segments per entrepreneur. It is
possible, and likely, that they cut out any boring negotiations and instead choose to focus on
conflicts, such as gender. Since there are so many factors that happen in these negotiation
interaction it is incredibly hard to isolate gender as a specific variable in getting a deal versus not
getting a deal because of complex relationships. Additionally, it is very hard to account for the
people on Shark Tank who were offered deals, but chose not to take them for a variety of
reasons. Gendered interactions in relation to what constitutes a “feminine business” is also very
hard to define. Are books considered feminine? Or a technology based toy company? It is
incredibly difficult and subjective to say what would be considered “appropriately feminine” and
what wouldn’t be. For the reason of these limitations it is hard to say that gender is a deciding
factor in the deals on Shark Tank or in real-life capital negotiations—but patterns are definitely
apparent.
However, despite the difficulties in identifying if gender is truly a deciding factor in
negotiations, it opens up a great deal of material for potential research opportunities. One great
opportunity would be to explore how business professionals can work to change the connotative
meaning of “entrepreneur” and “professionalism” to make it an attainable goal for women, or
even make it more gender neutral. A process needs to be started to help re-characterize
entrepreneurship to make it an achievable identity for women. Since gender is so fluid and
subjective, it is incredibly hard to study and create definitive results so, studies need to focus on
more than metrics. Gendered entrepreneurship needs to be studied in interviews, conventions,
and focus groups. A dialogue must be started on how to patch the inequalities faced by women.

21. 21
It would also be incredibly interesting in future studies on gender and venture capital to focus on
what other factors work in conjunction with gender to contribute to—or work to eliminate
discrimination, for example looks, voice, presentation, etc. Using these opportunities for future
research we can work to create solutions to close the gap between men and women in business.

22. 22
WORKS CITED
Brana, S. (2013). Microcredit: An Answer to the Gender Problem in Funding? Small Business
Economy, (40), 87-100. Retrieved April 1, 2015.
Downs, H. (2005). The Role of Gender in Female Entrepreneurship. 3-27. Retrieved April 1,
2015.
Dries, K. (2014, May 17). Shark Tank's Endlessly Weird But Always Entertaining Gender
Obsession. Retrieved April 1, 2015.
Galvez-Munoz, L., & Fernandez-Perez, P. (2007). Female Entrepreneurship in Spain during the
Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. Business History Review, (81), 495-515. Retrieved
April 1, 2015.
Kaplan, S., & Vanderbrug, J. (2014). The Rise of Gender Capitalism. Stanford Social Innovation
Reviewq, 36-41. Retrieved April 1, 2015.
Lewis, P. (2013). The Search for an Authentic Entrepreneurial Identity: Difference and
Professionalism among Women Business Owners. Gender, Work, and
Organization, 20(3), 252-267. Retrieved April 1, 2015.
Lutter, M. (2015). Do Women Suffer From Network Disclosure? American Sociological
Review, 80(2), 329-358. Retrieved April 1, 2015.
Sena, V., Scott, J., & Roper, S. (2012). Gender, Borrowing Patterns and Self-Employment: Some
Evidence for England. Small Business Economy, 467-480. Retrieved April 1, 2015.
Shaw, E., Carter, S., & Lam, W. (2012). Business Ownership, Finance, and Gender. 188-205.
Thebaud, S. (2010). Gender and Entrepreneurship as a Career Choice: Do Self-Assessments of
Ability Matter? Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(3), 288-304. Retrieved April 1, 2015.

23. 23
West, Candace and Don Zimmerman. (1987). “Doing Gender.” Gender & Society. 1(2). 125-
151.
Wiederhold, B. (2014). How Can More Women-Owned Technology Businesses Get Funding?
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17. Retrieved April 1, 2015.

24. 24