2 ms·
Hmm, no, giving her significantly lower compensation would be highly criminal and bad if it was the case that it was because of her gender
by wly_cdgr 3y ago
Hmm, no, giving her significantly lower compensation would be highly criminal and bad if it was the case that it was because of her gender
- pea 3y agoOut of interest, if the above were proved to be true, could she theoretically bring a gender discrimination case -- even if the whole thing is a massive fraud which she was complicit to?
- dchftcs 3y agoI don't think it's due to gender per se (not that this necessarily matters to the trial). More likely SBF just found her to be the easiest to exploit. There's certainly a correlation (a dude would have slightly different reasons to allow himself to be exploited), but my priors are that gender isn't the direct cause here.
- catchnear4321 3y agoso it wasn’t because of her gender. but she was easy to exploit, unlike the boys. (the woman was easiest to exploit, coincidentally.) she was also “his girlfriend” for a time. sbf likes easy targets with low risk of blowback. moves like a particular type of abusive personality. the little boy who can’t be held accountable. and now she’s testifying against him. that’s not even getting into systemic gender bias, but that might not jive with your perception of dudes’ motivations.