3 ms·

Your first comment suggests that she merely wasn't getting good criticism because men were fawning over her, and that's why her technology didn't work. We'll se

by oivey 5y ago

Your first comment suggests that she merely wasn't getting good criticism because men were fawning over her, and that's why her technology didn't work. We'll see the verdict from the trial, but at this point it is pretty solidly documented that the technology and company she built around it were a deliberate fraud. It seems rather cut and dry. Your second comment (double quoted here to emphasize that it's a quote you made up) says ""Yup, that's what happens when a woman is in charge of a business"" which I would also describe as a pretty extreme mischaracterization of the reaction to her behavior.

DoreenMichele 5y ago
Thank you for engaging me. My first comment was carefully worded to try to avoid drama and isn't a full expression of my thinking. A more accurate statement would be that I think you likely wouldn't have seen a company that was nothing but hot air reach a valuation of $10 billion with a man in charge. Someone would have gone "Hold up. Where is the evidence?" a lot sooner. My second comment was me expressing my concerns about public opinion and how it gets shaped. It wasn't characterizing how she ran the company at all. A lot of stuff gets understood as subtext or due to context. I expressed my feelings and fears and there was strong pushback against that which seems also rather rooted in bias to me. A woman feeling like "God, this looks really bad and I fear how it will impact general perception of women in business." really shouldn't be any kind of drama at all. Yet it was. Edit: Excerpt from a blog post I wrote at the time expanding on my thoughts on my first comment: I feel this is a very widespread issue and a very serious issue. For most women, like me, it holds us back and we struggle to get anywhere. The lack of constructive friction means we just cannot get traction at all. For Ms. Holmes, a confluence of events caused that lack of friction to grow a pipe dream, a fantasy, to incredible proportions due to a lack of brakes in the system. There was a lack of genuine checks and balances. Now, reality is finally intruding and it is a debacle. It is too late to help Ms. Holmes. She just has to pay the piper now. She may never be taken seriously. But I wish this disaster would foster more constructive discussion about the very real problems female founders face.
- oivey 5y ago
  Madoff's "investment" firm, I think, is a good comparison for Holmes's Theranos. They're both conartists that peddled their image and influence to run fake businesses and steal money from investors. My pre-edit post had a sentence that was poorly written, and it still might be unclear. My point was meant to be that the coverage of Holmes has very much not described the situation as what happens when a woman is in charge. I also think you're not accurately portraying what she has done. She is not some misguided founder who came up with an idea that failed but then just continued to fail up because men were too enamored with her to tell her the truth. She deliberately and repeatedly committed fraud - a crime. She knew her product didn't work, and she went through great efforts to lie about it. The greater context is even more damning when you consider the influence peddling, Jobs costume, fake deep voice, etc. I think the pushback you saw is because your point is ignoring the reality of Holmes's actions to make a separate point. In no way is Holmes a victim of a lack of constructive feedback. I can also understand how it could be concerning that all women leaders will get painted with the same brush as her, but I think virtually all serious coverage of Theranos has described her as an exceptional criminal, not a portrait of women in leadership.

by oivey 5y ago

DoreenMichele 5y ago

Thank you for engaging me. My first comment was carefully worded to try to avoid drama and isn't a full expression of my thinking. A more accurate statement would be that I think you likely wouldn't have seen a company that was nothing but hot air reach a valuation of $10 billion with a man in charge. Someone would have gone "Hold up. Where is the evidence?" a lot sooner. My second comment was me expressing my concerns about public opinion and how it gets shaped. It wasn't characterizing how she ran the company at all. A lot of stuff gets understood as subtext or due to context. I expressed my feelings and fears and there was strong pushback against that which seems also rather rooted in bias to me. A woman feeling like "God, this looks really bad and I fear how it will impact general perception of women in business." really shouldn't be any kind of drama at all. Yet it was. Edit: Excerpt from a blog post I wrote at the time expanding on my thoughts on my first comment: I feel this is a very widespread issue and a very serious issue. For most women, like me, it holds us back and we struggle to get anywhere. The lack of constructive friction means we just cannot get traction at all. For Ms. Holmes, a confluence of events caused that lack of friction to grow a pipe dream, a fantasy, to incredible proportions due to a lack of brakes in the system. There was a lack of genuine checks and balances. Now, reality is finally intruding and it is a debacle. It is too late to help Ms. Holmes. She just has to pay the piper now. She may never be taken seriously. But I wish this disaster would foster more constructive discussion about the very real problems female founders face.

oivey 5y ago
Madoff's "investment" firm, I think, is a good comparison for Holmes's Theranos. They're both conartists that peddled their image and influence to run fake businesses and steal money from investors. My pre-edit post had a sentence that was poorly written, and it still might be unclear. My point was meant to be that the coverage of Holmes has very much not described the situation as what happens when a woman is in charge. I also think you're not accurately portraying what she has done. She is not some misguided founder who came up with an idea that failed but then just continued to fail up because men were too enamored with her to tell her the truth. She deliberately and repeatedly committed fraud - a crime. She knew her product didn't work, and she went through great efforts to lie about it. The greater context is even more damning when you consider the influence peddling, Jobs costume, fake deep voice, etc. I think the pushback you saw is because your point is ignoring the reality of Holmes's actions to make a separate point. In no way is Holmes a victim of a lack of constructive feedback. I can also understand how it could be concerning that all women leaders will get painted with the same brush as her, but I think virtually all serious coverage of Theranos has described her as an exceptional criminal, not a portrait of women in leadership.