Another failure. Another reason to hate myself. More proof I was just a lazy piece of crap who couldn’t even manage a simple morning routine.

Here’s what nobody tells you about ADHD: we don’t work like that. We literally cannot.

Your ADHD brain isn’t wired for consistency. Some days you’re Xena, Warrior Princess, conquering the world with a million brilliant ideas. The next day you’re a ball of sludge under a duvet wondering how you’ll survive brushing your teeth. This isn’t a character flaw—it’s neurobiology.

The problem? You can’t trust yourself. You know you’re capable of incredible things, but you’re terrified of committing because what if tomorrow you’re running on 2% battery? What if you let everyone down when the sludge arrives?

Here’s the counterintuitive truth that changed everything for me: The moment you stop trying to be Tony Robbins every single day is the moment your life actually improves.

I know. Your ADHD brain who wants to take over the world absolutely hates hearing this. But accepting that you can’t operate at maximum capacity every day is the kindest, most productive thing you can do for yourself.

Instead of chasing the fantasy of turbo-charged mornings, start understanding your ADHD battery. Some days you’re at 80%. Most days you’re probably around 30%. And on those brutal 5% days? If you do ONE thing on your to-do list, you’re winning at life.

No matter where you are right now, you’ve achieved everything you have while battling constant inadequacy and mental sludge. You showed up to that job. You got that qualification. You built that home, sustained that relationship, raised that child. You did it all on hard mode.

Stop beating yourself with the hustle culture stick. Your brilliant, differently-wired brain deserves better than another failed ice bath challenge at 4am.

In 2023, all-male founder teams raised £6.5 billion in venture capital. Female-only teams? They raised £2 billion—over the past decade.

Read that again. A single year of funding for men exceeded ten years of funding for women by more than three times.

This isn’t just unfair. It’s economically catastrophic.

According to the Women and Equalities Committee’s latest report on female entrepreneurship, the UK economy is currently hemorrhaging £310 billion in potential growth—money we’re leaving on the table simply because we refuse to fund women at the same rate as men. That figure, adjusted for inflation, stems from the landmark Rose Review, which identified that equalizing investment in female entrepreneurs could unlock £250 billion in economic value.

As Stephen Welton CBE, Chair of the British Business Bank, put it: “There is a big opportunity here. The evidence and the data tell us we have a problem. What we are failing to sufficiently unlock is the opportunity of a huge amount of economic activity.”

The Funding Gap Is Getting Worse, Not Better

The trajectory is alarming. In 2024, just 2% of equity investment backed a female founder—down from 2.5% the previous year. Meanwhile, all-male teams continue to hoover up over 80% of available venture capital, despite the inconvenient truth that female-led businesses consistently outperform their male-led counterparts.

Women currently lead just 20% of UK businesses. The playing field isn’t level—it’s a cliff face.

For women from ethnically diverse backgrounds, the picture becomes almost incomprehensible. Between 2009 and 2019, only ten Black female entrepreneurs received venture capital funding in the UK. Ten. That represents 0.02% of total venture capital investment over a decade.

Even in sectors explicitly designed for women, the pattern holds. Femtech companies—technologies addressing women’s health and wellbeing—are less likely to receive funding when founded exclusively by women than when founded by men. As Debbie Wosskow OBE, co-chair of the Invest in Women Taskforce, bluntly stated: “The UK is a pretty terrible place to be a female entrepreneur.”

Why the Gap Exists

The Committee identified several interconnected barriers. Women disproportionately shoulder caregiving responsibilities, which constrains their time, income, and ability to scale businesses during critical growth phases. There’s a documented gap in “financial confidence” between men and women that begins in childhood—a reflection of inadequate financial and enterprise education in schools, particularly for girls.

But perhaps the most damaging factor is simply this: recommendations keep getting ignored. Banks and venture funds treat policy suggestions as optional. Without transparency requirements and meaningful enforcement mechanisms, nothing changes.

What We’re Really Losing

The Committee emphasized that this isn’t merely about missing out on £310 billion. We’re also losing the unique goods, services, and innovations that women—particularly women from diverse backgrounds—would create. Technologies designed by and for marginalized groups. Solutions to problems that male-dominated boardrooms don’t even recognize exist.

The potential is enormous. We just need the political will to unlock it.

The Path Forward

The solution isn’t mysterious. The government must work with UK Research and Innovation to develop dedicated entrepreneurial support programs for women in postgraduate and postdoctoral studies. We need campaigns showcasing female role models at every stage of the entrepreneurial journey. Most critically, we need mandatory financial and enterprise education embedded in the school curriculum, with specific focus on building girls’ financial confidence from an early age.

And we need enforcement. Real accountability. Transparent reporting on how much funding actually reaches female founders, with consequences for institutions that continue discriminatory practices.

Britain has a choice. We can continue watching hundreds of billions in economic growth slip away while talented women struggle for crumbs of investment. Or we can recognize that backing female entrepreneurs isn’t charity—it’s smart economics.

The evidence is clear. The data is damning. The opportunity is massive.

It’s time to stop leaving money—and potential—on the table.

Subscribe now