Introduction: Deconstructing the American Dream

There is a myth deeply embedded in American tech culture—the story of the scrappy entrepreneur who starts with nothing but an idea, works out of a garage, and builds a billion-dollar empire through sheer talent and determination. We’ve heard it countless times: Bill Gates dropping out of Harvard, Steve Jobs tinkering in his parents’ garage, Jeff Bezos leaving a stable career to sell books online. These narratives have become modern parables of the American Dream, suggesting that anyone with enough brilliance and grit can replicate their success.

But this “starting from zero” fairytale must be debunked if we are going to bring more underrepresented groups into business. The reality is far more complex—and far less accessible—than the myth suggests. When we examine the actual backgrounds, resources, and support systems these founders had access to, a different picture emerges. One that reveals why women and minorities face not just different odds, but astronomically different odds, when attempting to follow the same path.

The Myth of Starting from Zero

The garage has become an iconic symbol in Silicon Valley lore. Apple Computer started in Steve Jobs’s parents’ garage. Microsoft’s early work happened in Bill Gates’s childhood bedroom. Amazon began in Jeff Bezos’s rented garage in Bellevue, Washington. These origin stories are repeated endlessly, reinforcing the narrative that these men started with nothing.

But what these stories consistently omit are the profound advantages—educational, financial, social, and structural—that made these “garage startups” possible in the first place. These weren’t ordinary garages; they were launchpads built on foundations of privilege that were systematically denied to women and minorities of the same generation.

The Founders: A Data Analysis

Using research across multiple sources, I examined the backgrounds of fourteen prominent male tech founders to understand what resources and advantages they actually possessed. The results are striking:

Name	Birth Date	College	State Grew Up In	Company	Year Founded	Age At Founding	Family Income	High School Experience
Bill Gates	Oct 28, 1955	Harvard (did not graduate)	Washington	Microsoft	1975	19	High Income (Father prominent attorney, mother on corporate boards)	Excellent student; attended elite Lakeside School with early computer access; scored 1590/1600 SAT
Steve Jobs	Feb 24, 1955	Reed College (dropped out)	California	Apple	1976	21	Middle income (adopted by working-class parents; father machinist	Average grades; Interested in electronics; access to HP and tech clubs in Silicon Valley
Jeff Bezos	Jan 12, 1964	Princeton University	Florida/ Texas	Amazon	1994	30	Middle Income (stepfather petroleum engineer, mother teenage parent)	Valedictorian; strong in math and science; attended gifted programs
Mark Zuckerberg	May 14, 1984	Harvard (did not graduate)	New York	Facebook	2004	19	High income (father dentist, mother psychiatrist)	Excellent student (attended elite Philips Exeter Academy; excelled in classics and programming
Elon Musk	June 28, 1971	Univ. of Pennsylvania	South Africa	PayPal	1999	27	High income (father engineering/property developer	Good student; bullied in school; self-taught programmer; read extensively on physics and engineering
Larry Page	March 26, 1973	Univ. of Michigan/Stanford	Michigan	Google	1998	25	Middle to high income (both parents computer science professors)	Excellent student; had computers at home from early age; attended arts magnet school
Sergey Brin	Aug 21, 1973	Univ. of Maryland/ Stanford	Maryland	Google	1998	24	Middle income (father math professor, mother NASA researcher; immigrated from Soviet union)	Excellent student; strong in math; computer access through university connections
Michael Dell	Feb 23, 1965	UT Austin(did not graduate	Texas	Dell Computer	1984	19	High income (father orthodontist, mother stockbroker)	Good student, early interest in computers and business; started upgrading computers as teenager
Sam Altman	April 22, 1985	Stanford (dropped out)	Missouri	Open AI	2015	30	Middle to high income (father dermatologist)	Good student; learned programming young; computer access at home, strong in math
Larry Ellison	Aug 17, 1944	Univ. of Illinois/Chicago (both without graduating)	Illinois	Oracle	1977	32	Low-to-middle income (adopted, raised by aunt/uncle; uncle government worker)	Bright but inconsistent student; strong in math and science; attended Univ. of Chicago Lab School briefly
Paul Allen	Jan 21, 1953	Washington State (dropped out)	Washington	Microsoft	1975	22	Middle income (father librarian, mother teacher	Excellent student; attended Lakeside School with Gates; early computer access;
Steve Wozniak	Aug 11, 1950	UC Berkeley (completed later)	California	Apple	1976	25	Middle income (father engineer at Lockheed)	Excellent in math and science, built electronics projects from young age; father taught him engineering
Jack Dorsey	Nov 19, 1976	Univ. of Missouri/NYU (both without graduating)	Missouri	Twitter	2006	29	Middle income (father worked for mass spectrometer company	Good student; early interest in programming and dispatch routing; computer access
Jensen Huang	Feb 17, 1963	Oregon Nurse/ Stanford	Oregon	NVIDIA	1993	30	Middle income (parents immigrated from Taiwan; father chemical engineer	Good student; worked at Denny’s as busboy/waiter; strong in math and science

Key Patterns Emerge

Looking at this data, several patterns become immediately clear:

Elite Education Access: With one exception (Larry Ellison), all founders came from middle-to-high income families. Many attended elite private schools like Lakeside (Gates, Allen) and Phillips Exeter Academy (Zuckerberg) that provided early computer access when such technology was extraordinarily rare and expensive.

Early Computer Access: In the 1960s and 1970s, having access to a computer was like having access to a private jet today. Lakeside School’s computer terminal, funded through school fundraising, gave Gates and Allen thousands of hours of programming experience before most Americans had ever seen a computer.

Professional Parents: Fathers were attorneys, orthodontists, engineers, professors, and entrepreneurs. Mothers served on corporate boards, worked as psychiatrists, and had professional careers. This provided not just financial resources but crucial professional networks.

Geographic Advantage: Many grew up in or near Silicon Valley (Jobs, Wozniak) or other tech hubs, providing proximity to industry pioneers and emerging technology companies.

Safety Nets: The ability to drop out of Harvard (Gates, Zuckerberg) or Princeton (Bezos completed but could take risks afterward) requires knowing you have family support if you fail. These weren’t reckless gambles—they were calculated risks with safety nets.

The Lone Wolf Myth: Support Systems Hidden in Plain Sight

The “lone genius” narrative is perhaps the most pernicious aspect of the garage myth. We see the person at the top without examining the extensive support system that got them there. But these men didn’t create their companies in a vacuum—they had crucial advantages at every stage.

Bill Gates and Paul Allen: The Power of Connections

Bill Gates came from significant privilege. His father was a prominent attorney, and his mother, Mary Gates, served on multiple corporate boards including the United Way of America. This connection proved crucial to Microsoft’s breakthrough.

When IBM was looking for an operating system for its personal computer in 1980, Mary Gates’s position on the United Way board alongside IBM Chairman John Opel made the difference. According to The Seattle Times, when IBM was assessing options, Opel remembered Microsoft as “the company run by Bill Gates, Mary Gates’ son” (CNBC). Mary Gates had spoken with Opel about Microsoft, and he subsequently spoke to IBM executives about the company. IBM “took a chance” and hired Microsoft for the job (CNBC).

This wasn’t just luck—it was access. The kind of access that comes from having a mother on corporate boards who can make introductions to the chairman of IBM. Without this connection, Microsoft might have remained one of many small software companies competing for attention.

Additionally, Gates attended Lakeside School, where the Mothers’ Club used rummage sale proceeds to buy computer time on a General Electric system. When Gates’s allocated time ran out, his parents paid for additional hours (Glinteco). Most teenagers in the 1970s had never seen a computer; Gates was programming thousands of hours before graduating high school.

Steve Jobs: Mentors, Geography, and Fortuitous Timing

Steve Jobs’s advantages were different but equally significant. Growing up in Los Altos, California, he was “surrounded by the energetic atmosphere of Silicon Valley” and became “a consistent presence at the Homebrew Computer Club” (Press Farm). This geographic proximity to the epicenter of the computer revolution was no accident—his adoptive parents had chosen to live in an area where Jobs would have access to technology and innovation.

Jobs had multiple influential mentors who shaped his approach to business. Mike Markkula, an early investor in Apple, “played a significant role as one of Jobs’s top mentors, contributing valuable strategic insights” (Press Farm). Robert Friedland, whom Jobs met at Reed College, taught him what Daniel Kottke described as “the reality distortion field”—the ability to bend situations to his will. Friedland was “charismatic, a bit of a con man and could bend situations to his very strong will. He was mercurial, sure of himself, a little dictatorial. Steve admired that, and he became more like that after spending time with Robert” (Cult of Mac).

At Atari, Jobs worked under Nolan Bushnell, “another role model waiting to be emulated.” Bushnell’s “willingness to play by his own rules rubbed off on” Jobs (Medium). These weren’t random encounters—they were the result of being in the right place at the right time with access to industry pioneers.

Perhaps most importantly, Jobs met Steve Wozniak, who actually designed the technology that became Apple’s first products. When Wozniak showed Jobs his computer logic board design, “Jobs suggested they go into business together, which they did after Hewlett-Packard formally turned down Wozniak’s design in 1976” (Britannica). Jobs’s genius was in recognizing the commercial potential and building a business—but he needed Wozniak’s technical brilliance to have a product to sell.

Jeff Bezos: Elite Education and Wall Street Training

Jeff Bezos graduated from Princeton University “summa cum laude with a 4.2 GPA, elected to Phi Beta Kappa and Tau Beta Pi” (Wikipedia). After graduation, he “was offered jobs at Intel, Bell Labs, and Andersen Consulting” (Wikipedia)—opportunities that came from attending an elite university with powerful recruiting pipelines.

Before founding Amazon, Bezos “worked at the intersection of computer science and finance, helping to build one of the most technically sophisticated quantitative hedge funds on Wall Street for D.E. Shaw & Co. He also led the development of computer systems that helped manage more than $250 billion in assets for Bankers Trust Co.” (Princeton University). This experience gave him expertise in technology, finance, and operations—plus access to wealthy investors.

When Bezos started Amazon, he had approximately “$1 million in capital, most borrowed from friends and family” (Reference for Business). That “friends and family” network was built through Princeton and Wall Street—connections that aren’t available to everyone. His wife, MacKenzie Scott, “took an integral role in Amazon’s operation—writing checks, keeping track of the books, and negotiating the company’s first freight contracts” (Wikipedia), providing crucial support that made his entrepreneurial risk possible.

Did Their Female Peers Have These Same Opportunities?

The answer is definitively, unequivocally no. Let’s examine what women faced during the same time periods when these men were building their advantages.

Educational Exclusion

While Gates attended Harvard and Zuckerberg followed, many elite universities had only recently begun admitting women. “Princeton admitted women in 1969, Yale in 1969, Johns Hopkins in 1970, and Columbia not until 1983” (Wikipedia; Princeton Alumni Weekly). Harvard didn’t fully integrate with Radcliffe College until the 1970s.

“In the mid-1950s, women comprised just 21 percent of college students” (National Geographic). Even when admitted, women faced hostile environments. Male faculty members told female students things like “You’re so cute. I can’t see you as a professor” and “Why don’t you find a rich husband and give this all up?”—what one professor described as “psychological warfare” (National Geographic).

“In 1970, only 11 percent of women ages 25-64 in the labor force held a Bachelor’s degree or higher, compared to 42 percent in 2016” (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). Women born in the 1940s-1950s—the same generation as these founders—had severely limited access to higher education during their college years.

Computer Access Denied

While Gates and Allen programmed for thousands of hours at Lakeside School, most girls never touched a computer. “Families were much more likely to buy computers for boys than for girls—even when their girls were really interested in computers” (NPR). By the 1980s, “computer science professors increasingly assumed that their students had grown up playing with computers at home” (NPR), creating a built-in disadvantage for women.

One female student recalled: “I asked a question and the professor stopped and looked at me and said, ‘You should know that by now.’ And I thought ‘I am never going to excel.'” She earned her first C and eventually dropped the program (NPR).

The “marketing strategies of personal computers in the 1980s played a crucial role in reinforcing gender norms. Advertisements and media campaigns frequently targeted young boys, depicting computers as tools for gaming and technical experimentation. This cultural messaging influenced parents’ decisions, leading them to buy computers for their sons more often than for their daughters” (CEPIS).

“Women were about 15-25% of software developers over the 1970s and this number was as high as 40% in 1987 but then the number actually decreases. By 2006, it’s back to something like 23%” (Computing and Society Substack). The pipeline wasn’t leaking—it was being actively drained.

Professional Networks Closed

While Mary Gates opened doors at IBM, women were systematically excluded from corporate boards and professional networks. “By the mid-1960s, about 80% of companies were using aptitude tests and personality profiles biased towards math classes that men were more likely to take, and identifying a particular obsessive, loner personality type” (Welcome to the Jungle).

“Annette Campbell-White, one of the first women to make the Midas List, claimed that a number of firms in the 1980s ignored her senior management experience” (Wikipedia). The message was clear: women weren’t welcome in positions of power, regardless of their qualifications.

Capital Completely Unavailable

Perhaps most devastating was the complete lack of access to venture capital. “Nearly 81 percent of venture capital firms have never hired a female employee—let alone chosen to fund a female-led startup” (CSIS). “Roughly 80 percent of female tech startup leaders reported using personal savings as their primary source of funding in starting a new business” (CSIS).

“Women-led firms receive only 2.4 percent of all equity investments in the United States and 4.1 percent of venture capital” (ResearchGate). “Female founders receive approximately a quarter of the amount of funding they seek, while their male counterparts receive half, on average” (Harvard Kennedy School).

The Garages for Women Look Different: A Statistical Comparison

To truly understand the disparity, let’s look at the actual odds of success.

The Lightning Strike Calculation

“The odds of being struck by lightning in a given year are less than one in a million” (CDC). “Over a lifetime (defined as 80 years), a person has a 1-in-15,300 chance of getting struck by lightning” (Britannica).

For women founders to achieve unicorn status (a company valued over $1 billion):

• “As of July 2025, there are over 1,200 unicorns around the world” (CB Insights)
• “124 companies founded by female founders have achieved unicorn status” (Failory)
• “Fewer than 3% of billion-dollar enterprises globally are female-founded” (Ubiminds)

Calculating the probability:

• Approximately 19.6 million male entrepreneurs in the US
• Approximately 16.5 million female entrepreneurs in the US
• Roughly 1,044 male-founded unicorns globally (87% of 1,200)
• Roughly 124 female-founded unicorns globally

Annual probability for a woman entrepreneur to found a unicorn: Approximately 1 in 2-3 million per year

Lifetime probability for a woman: Approximately 1 in 1.3-2.7 million over a 40-year career

Annual probability for a male entrepreneur to found a unicorn: Approximately 1 in 30,000 per year

Lifetime probability for a man: Approximately 1 in 750-1,000

The Stunning Comparison

Category	Women	Men	Male Advantage
Annual unicorn founding odds	1 in 2-3 million	1 in 30,000	Men are 67-100x more likely
Lifetime unicorn founding odds	1 in 1.3-2.7 million	1 in 750-1,000	Men are 1,300-3,600x more likely
Lightning strike comparison	10-20x more likely to be struck by lightning than found unicorn	15-20x MORE likely to found unicorn than be struck by lightning	—

A woman is approximately 100 times less likely to found a billion-dollar company than a man.

Put another way:

• For women: You’re more likely to be struck by lightning in your lifetime (1 in 15,300) than found a unicorn company (1 in 1.3-2.7 million)
• For men: You’re 15-20 times more likely to found a unicorn company (1 in 750-1,000) than be struck by lightning (1 in 15,300)

What’s Really Happening: The Compounding Effect of Structural Inequality

These disparities aren’t accidental—they’re the result of systematic exclusion at every level:

The male founders had:

1. Wealthy, connected families who opened corporate doors
2. Elite private schools with rare computer access
3. Geographic proximity to Silicon Valley or tech hubs
4. Early professional experience at cutting-edge companies
5. Mentor networks from successful entrepreneurs
6. Access to capital from family, friends, and investors
7. Social permission to be ambitious, difficult, unconventional
8. Safety nets allowing them to drop out and take risks
9. Professional networks through parents’ corporate connections
10. Fortuitous timing being positioned when new technologies emerged

Their female peers had:

1. Exclusion from elite universities until late 1960s-1970s
2. No computer access at home (parents bought for brothers instead)
3. Active discouragement from STEM fields by teachers and professors
4. Hostile workplace cultures with overt sexism and harassment
5. No access to venture capital (81% of VC firms never hired a woman)
6. No professional networks (women excluded from corporate boards)
7. Social penalties for being ambitious or assertive
8. No safety nets (expected to marry, not take entrepreneurial risks)
9. Pattern-matching bias in VC (looking for founders like past successes)
10. Different standards in evaluation (asked prevention vs. promotion questions)

“87% of unicorns have only male founders; 1.5% have only female founders” (Stanford GSB). This isn’t because women lacked talent or drive—it’s because every single structural advantage these male founders had was systematically denied to their female peers.

Progress and Persistence: What Has Changed and What Hasn’t

Three Major Improvements

1. Legal Protections and Educational Access

“Title IX, which outlawed gender discrimination in federally funded education, was enacted in 1972” (National Geographic). “Since the late 1970s and early 1980s, women have surpassed men in number of bachelor’s degrees and master’s degrees conferred annually” (Wikipedia). Women can now legally attend any university and have protection from overt discrimination.

2. Dedicated Support Organizations

“Girls Who Code offers after-school clubs, summer courses, and career advice and has worked with over 90,000 girls” (CIO). Organizations like Female Founders Fund, Women in Technology, and TechWomen provide mentorship, networking, and resources specifically for women. “Tech Nation research indicates that female founders who complete structured pitch preparation programmes receive offer terms 23% closer to market standards” (Founders Forum Group).

3. Growing Representation

“By 2023, 17% of unicorns have a female founder, up from essentially zero” (TechCrunch). “In 2021, 83 new women-led unicorns were minted worldwide, more than four times the 18 in 2020” (Fortune). While still dramatically underrepresented, women are making visible gains.

Three Ways Little Has Changed

1. Venture Capital Access Remains Abysmal

“Only 2.3% of venture capital investment went to female-founded companies in 2022” (Women in Tech Network). “At current rates of improvement, it would take until approximately 2065 to reach gender parity in venture capital allocation” (Founders Forum Group). The 30-year average of all-female founders’ share of VC funding is 2.4%—essentially unchanged.

2. Bias in Evaluation Persists

“Female founders are asked ‘prevention’ questions focused on risks and losses 2.3x more often than male founders, who receive more ‘promotion’ questions focused on aspirations and potential gains. Women are interrupted 4.7x more frequently during pitch presentations” (Founders Forum Group).

“Investors who have experienced a previous failure of a woman-led startup are less likely to invest in future women-led businesses, but those who’ve experienced successes are not more likely to invest in the future” (Yale Insights). This “one-way updating” reveals deep-seated bias.

3. Representation at the Top Remains Minimal

“None of the ‘Big Five’ US tech firms—Alphabet, Apple, Meta, Amazon, and Microsoft—have had a female CEO” (Women in Tech Network). “Only 8-9% of women hold positions like CIO, CTO, or IT manager” (Women in Tech Network). The fundamental gatekeepers remain closed.

Why Women Would Actually Make Better Founders

Perhaps most frustrating is that research shows women founders often outperform their male counterparts when given the opportunity:

Better Financial Returns: “VC firms with 10% more female investing partner hires make more successful investments at the portfolio company level, have 1.5% higher fund returns, and see 9.7% more profitable exits” (Harvard Kennedy School). “Women-led startups are 5 times more likely to be a billion-dollar company than those that are male-led” (Ubiminds).

Superior Leadership Traits: A study of 171 unicorn founders found that “diverse founders (women, ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals) share nearly identical psychological traits with their non-diverse counterparts across 159 characteristics” (The Funding Network). When differences appeared, “they often favored diverse founders: they used 23% more words related to empathy and team spirit, showed 20% stronger focus on the present moment (tied to charismatic leadership), and were 21% less tentative, showing confidence and conviction” (The Funding Network).

More Mission-Driven: “About 71% of women start a business to make a difference, compared to only 63% of men” (Apollo Technical). This purpose-driven approach often leads to more sustainable, impactful businesses.

Greater Resilience: Women who succeed as founders do so despite facing 100x worse odds, demonstrating extraordinary determination and resourcefulness.

What We Need to Do

So what do we do? As women founders and executives, the answer lies first in understanding the playing field. Pretending it is even is a recipe for failure. But if you know what you’re up against, you can use your strengths and find the loopholes.

For Women Founders:

Understand the Real Odds: You’re not competing on equal footing. The game is rigged, and knowing that allows you to strategize differently.

Leverage Your Advantages: Research shows women-led businesses outperform similar male-led businesses. Use data to make your case to investors.

Build Alternative Networks: “Female founders who complete structured pitch preparation programmes receive offer terms 23% closer to market standards” (Founders Forum Group). Seek out women-focused accelerators, pitch training, and mentorship programs.

Document Everything: When you’re asked prevention questions instead of promotion questions, when you’re interrupted, when you’re evaluated differently—document it. Use it to educate others and push for change.

Find the Right Investors: “Female VCs are twice as likely than male counterparts when providing money for businesses owned by women” (Women in Tech Network). Seek out diverse investment partners.

For the Tech Industry:

Stop Perpetuating the Myth: The “garage startup” story erases the structural advantages that made success possible. We must tell complete stories that acknowledge privilege and access.

Fix the Capital Gap: “At current rates, it will take until 2065 to reach parity” (Founders Forum Group). This is unacceptable. VC firms must commit to funding women at rates that reflect the actual ROI they deliver.

Change Pattern Matching: “VCs evaluate founders through a gendered lens and seek to replicate past examples of success through pattern-matching” (Harvard Kennedy School). Deliberately seek founders who don’t match the traditional profile.

Implement Blind Evaluation: Use structured evaluation processes that reduce bias in how founders are assessed.

Create Accountability: Track and publish diversity data. Set targets and measure progress.

The Big Question

Why do we continue to perpetuate the myth and allow others to do the same?

The myth serves those who benefit from it. It allows successful men to believe they earned everything through merit alone, without acknowledging the advantages that smoothed their path. It justifies the continued concentration of wealth and power among a narrow demographic by suggesting that anyone who doesn’t succeed simply didn’t work hard enough or wasn’t smart enough.

But the data tells a different story. When we look honestly at who had access to what, the pattern is undeniable: success in tech wasn’t just about talent or hard work. It was about being born into the right family, attending the right schools, living in the right place, and having access to networks, capital, and support systems that were systematically denied to women and minorities.

Conclusion: Beyond the Garage

The garage is a powerful symbol in American culture—a place where ordinary people can build extraordinary things. But we must recognize that not all garages are created equal. Some garages come with wealthy parents, elite educations, corporate connections, early computer access, influential mentors, venture capital, and safety nets. Others don’t.

Until we acknowledge the full picture—the privilege, the access, the structural advantages that made these success stories possible—we cannot create the conditions for truly equal opportunity. And until we dismantle the barriers that make women 100 times less likely to found a billion-dollar company, we’re leaving extraordinary talent, innovation, and economic value on the table.

The myth of the self-made tech billionaire isn’t just inaccurate—it’s actively harmful. It obscures the work we need to do to create genuine pathways to success for everyone, not just those born with the right advantages. It’s time to retire the garage myth and build something better: a tech industry that recognizes and values the contributions of all founders, regardless of their starting point.

Because the next generation of world-changing companies won’t come from perpetuating old myths. They’ll come from finally telling the truth—and acting on it.

---

Works Cited

“Addressing the Gender Imbalance in Venture Capital and Entrepreneurship.” Center for Strategic and International Studies, 23 Apr. 2025, www.csis.org/analysis/addressing-gender-imbalance-venture-capital-and-entrepreneurship.

Bezos, Jeff. “Choices Shape Lives, Bezos Tells Seniors.” Princeton University, 30 May 2010, www.princeton.edu/news/2010/05/30/choices-shape-lives-bezos-tells-seniors.

“Bill Gates.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, accessed 8 Oct. 2025, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates.

“Computer Programming Was Never a Women’s Occupation at Its Inception.” Computing and Society Substack, 21 Feb. 2025, computingandsociety.substack.com/p/computer-programming-was-never-a.

“Empowering Female Founders: How We Can Narrow the Gender Gap in Venture Capital.” World Economic Forum, www.weforum.org/stories/2023/12/how-we-can-close-the-venture-capital-gender-gap/.

“Female-Founded Unicorns in the Americas: 8 Leaders Shaping Innovation.” Ubiminds, 21 Feb. 2025, ubiminds.com/en-us/female-founded/.

“From Pioneers to Underrepresented Group: The Shifting Role of Women in Tech.” CEPIS, 5 Mar. 2025, cepis.org/from-pioneers-to-underrepresented-group/.

“How Bill Gates’ Mom Helped Microsoft Get a Deal with IBM in 1980.” CNBC, 6 Aug. 2020, www.cnbc.com/2020/08/05/how-bill-gates-mother-influenced-the-success-of-microsoft.html.

“How Many Billion-Dollar Companies Have Female Founders?” PitchBook, 22 Mar. 2019, pitchbook.com/news/articles/how-many-billion-dollar-companies-have-female-founders.

“Jeff Bezos.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, accessed 8 Oct. 2025, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos.

“Lightning Strike Victim Data.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 23 Apr. 2024, www.cdc.gov/lightning/data-research/index.html.

“Men’s Colleges in the United States.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 27 July 2025, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men’s_colleges_in_the_United_States.

“New Study of Unicorn Founders Finds Most Are ‘Underdogs.'” TechCrunch, 28 Mar. 2024, techcrunch.com/2024/03/27/unicorn-founders/.

“Steve Jobs.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, accessed 8 Oct. 2025, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs.

“Steve Jobs’ Childhood and Early Life Before Apple.” Press Farm, 4 Apr. 2025, press.farm/steve-jobs-childhood-and-early-life-before-apple/.

“The Complete List of Unicorn Companies.” CB Insights, accessed 8 Oct. 2025, www.cbinsights.com/research-unicorn-companies.

“The Truth Behind Bill Gates’ Success: Talent, Privilege, and the Role of Family Background.” Glinteco, glinteco.com/en/post/the-truth-behind-bill-gates-success.

“This LSD Love Guru Gave Steve Jobs His ‘Reality Distortion Field.'” Cult of Mac, 28 July 2015, www.cultofmac.com/news/this-lsd-love-guru-turned-gold-mining-billionaire-gave-steve-jobs-his-reality-distortion-field.

“Title IX at 50: How the U.S. Law Transformed Education for Women.” National Geographic, 23 June 2022, www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/the-history-and-legacy-of-title-ix.

“20 Organizations Advancing Women in Tech.” CIO, 28 Mar. 2025, www.cio.com/article/215709/16-organizations-for-women-in-tech.html.

“Venture Capital and Entrepreneurship.” Harvard Kennedy School, www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/wappp/research/past/venture-capital-entrepreneurship.

“What Are the Chances of Being Struck by Lightning?” Britannica, www.britannica.com/question/What-are-the-chances-of-being-struck-by-lightning.

“What Makes Unicorns Special?” Stanford Graduate School of Business, www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/what-makes-unicorns-special-these-numbers-may-hold-answers.

“When Women Stopped Coding.” NPR Planet Money, 21 Oct. 2014, www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-women-stopped-coding.

“Why It’s Harder for Women Founders to Get Venture Capital Funding.” Yale Insights, 18 Oct. 2024, insights.som.yale.edu/insights/why-its-harder-for-women-founders-to-get-venture