5 ms·

> there is no need (and no justification) to draw attention to Theranos's founder's looks. When there's a possibility that she dresses in a certain way in orde

by 55555 11y ago

> there is no need (and no justification) to draw attention to Theranos's founder's looks. When there's a possibility that she dresses in a certain way in order to subconsciously convince people that she's a maverick visionary, or when she lacks that intent but it probably had that effect, I think it's justified (but not needed). And a defined masculine jaw would probably help you raise money, just like it helps you get dates. Random depressing link: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/01/05/new-study-finds-women-who-are-not-considered-attractive-receive-lower-grades https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/01/05/new-study-fin...

pron 11y ago
> When there's a possibility that she dresses in a certain way Obviously I wasn't referring to the clause about her attire. > And a defined masculine jaw would probably help you raise money Absolutely, but that was not my point. The point is that if the matter of appearance is commonly brought up when a woman is involved but rarely when a man is, then there's a problem. If the matter of Agassi's jaw had been brought up as a likely reason for his ability to fool (or not) investors as often as Holmes's natural physical appearance comes up, I wouldn't have said a thing. I'm not objecting at all to the likely hypothesis (perhaps a well-supported theory by now) that physical appearance matters a lot in all sorts of circumstances, but to the tendency to bring up physical appearance as a significant cause for success only (or almost only) when discussing women, and when the actual amount information supporting this hypothesis in both cases (of men and women) is similarly nonexistent (and possibly similarly likely in both cases).
- DanBC 11y ago
  > The point is that if the matter of appearance is commonly brought up when a woman is involved but rarely when a man is, then there's a problem. Yes. And now it's a bit circular: here appearance was heavily commented on when theranos was starting and beginning to raise money; and so now when people write about Theranos they keep mentioning it.
- adwn 11y ago
  In this case, her gender and her looks are actually relevant, since most VCs are male, and it would be naive to assume that VCs are completely immune to the influence of a young, attractive woman.
  - pron 11y ago
    So what you're saying is that SV's well-documented sexism is (among many other things, also) may also be a significant contributing factor for reckless investment. But in this case, I don't see the problem. If in 9 cases out of 10 women get the short end of the stick due to sexism, that some of them are occasionally able to turn the tables and use it for their own advantage is nothing but a cause for celebration: "Ingenious Woman Turns Investors' Harmful Sexism Against Them". Social hacking at its best! If women were only truly able to pull-off "a Holmes" (i.e., con male investors out of their money using their sexual charms), maybe that threat would finally get investors to start seeing sexism as a serious problem. The only thing that's bugging me about your solution to sexism, is that according to that logic, women should be at a great advantage when raising money from VCs (unless you also claim that their natural lack of cunning offsets that advantage), yet in practice we see the exact opposite. So it's unclear to me how -- without any other information on investors' reasoning -- femininity could be at all mentioned as an advantage when fundraising, while data shows it to be otherwise.
    - adwn 11y ago
      > So what you're saying is that SV's well-documented sexism is (among many other things, also) may also be a significant contributing factor for reckless investment. No, I'm not saying that at all, and my point was completely unrelated to sexism. You can be entirely un-sexist and still be subconsciously influenced by the attractiveness of the opposite sex (in case of heterosexuality; applies correspondingly to homosexual people). It's a natural bias which we should be aware of and recognize in ourselves, so that we can compensate for it. My point was that the majority of SV's VCs are male (and presumably mostly heterosexual, like the rest of the population), so it is plausible that Holmes' gender and looks influenced VC decisions to a certain degree.
    - 11y ago
cbsmith 11y ago
> When there's a possibility that she dresses in a certain way in order to subconsciously convince people that she's a maverick visionary, or when she lacks that intent but it probably had that effect, I think it's justified (but not needed). And a defined masculine jaw would probably help you raise money, just like it helps you get dates. Appearance no doubt helps. The notion that it is a significant enough factor to be worth mentioning here doesn't appear to be borne out in the allocation of VC funds.

by 55555 11y ago

pron 11y ago

> When there's a possibility that she dresses in a certain way Obviously I wasn't referring to the clause about her attire. > And a defined masculine jaw would probably help you raise money Absolutely, but that was not my point. The point is that if the matter of appearance is commonly brought up when a woman is involved but rarely when a man is, then there's a problem. If the matter of Agassi's jaw had been brought up as a likely reason for his ability to fool (or not) investors as often as Holmes's natural physical appearance comes up, I wouldn't have said a thing. I'm not objecting at all to the likely hypothesis (perhaps a well-supported theory by now) that physical appearance matters a lot in all sorts of circumstances, but to the tendency to bring up physical appearance as a significant cause for success only (or almost only) when discussing women, and when the actual amount information supporting this hypothesis in both cases (of men and women) is similarly nonexistent (and possibly similarly likely in both cases).

DanBC 11y ago
> The point is that if the matter of appearance is commonly brought up when a woman is involved but rarely when a man is, then there's a problem. Yes. And now it's a bit circular: here appearance was heavily commented on when theranos was starting and beginning to raise money; and so now when people write about Theranos they keep mentioning it.
adwn 11y ago
In this case, her gender and her looks are actually relevant, since most VCs are male, and it would be naive to assume that VCs are completely immune to the influence of a young, attractive woman.
- pron 11y ago
  So what you're saying is that SV's well-documented sexism is (among many other things, also) may also be a significant contributing factor for reckless investment. But in this case, I don't see the problem. If in 9 cases out of 10 women get the short end of the stick due to sexism, that some of them are occasionally able to turn the tables and use it for their own advantage is nothing but a cause for celebration: "Ingenious Woman Turns Investors' Harmful Sexism Against Them". Social hacking at its best! If women were only truly able to pull-off "a Holmes" (i.e., con male investors out of their money using their sexual charms), maybe that threat would finally get investors to start seeing sexism as a serious problem. The only thing that's bugging me about your solution to sexism, is that according to that logic, women should be at a great advantage when raising money from VCs (unless you also claim that their natural lack of cunning offsets that advantage), yet in practice we see the exact opposite. So it's unclear to me how -- without any other information on investors' reasoning -- femininity could be at all mentioned as an advantage when fundraising, while data shows it to be otherwise.
  - adwn 11y ago
    > So what you're saying is that SV's well-documented sexism is (among many other things, also) may also be a significant contributing factor for reckless investment. No, I'm not saying that at all, and my point was completely unrelated to sexism. You can be entirely un-sexist and still be subconsciously influenced by the attractiveness of the opposite sex (in case of heterosexuality; applies correspondingly to homosexual people). It's a natural bias which we should be aware of and recognize in ourselves, so that we can compensate for it. My point was that the majority of SV's VCs are male (and presumably mostly heterosexual, like the rest of the population), so it is plausible that Holmes' gender and looks influenced VC decisions to a certain degree.
  - 11y ago

cbsmith 11y ago

> When there's a possibility that she dresses in a certain way in order to subconsciously convince people that she's a maverick visionary, or when she lacks that intent but it probably had that effect, I think it's justified (but not needed). And a defined masculine jaw would probably help you raise money, just like it helps you get dates. Appearance no doubt helps. The notion that it is a significant enough factor to be worth mentioning here doesn't appear to be borne out in the allocation of VC funds.