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 busi

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.