Sure, they played her gender up for all they could, but the same thing has happened many times with golden-haired young male founders: While the stock is being

Sure, they played her gender up for all they could, but the same thing has happened many times with golden-haired young male founders: While the stock is being pumped, they can do no wrong, they are visionaries, they are wise and smart beyond their years, &c. &c. We have seen that pattern with every unicorn going back to the days of Jobs and Wozniak. Some of them (like Jobs and Wozniak) turn out to have something. Some of them (consult the Dead Pool for an exhaustive list) turn out to have diddley to contribute, and their companies close, or they get pushed aside. But for some reason, when a woman fails, there is a reaction that she was only CEO because she was a woman, and there is some massive conspiracy to prop women up and tear men down. It's simply not true. All sorts of men get propped up for a long time after their incompetence has been demonstrated. All sorts of women get tossed aside even though they were competent and the company's troubles were beyond their power to correct. This really is a case where the simplest explanation is the correct one: The investors did not want to cast her aside because they were trying to maintain the illusion that all was well. Zero to do with gender.