4 ms·

> Plenty of male-led businesses also turned out to be scams, and yet no one goes 'that guy looks sharp, but he is male so seems suspicious'. The scam was sold

> Plenty of male-led businesses also turned out to be scams, and yet no one goes 'that guy looks sharp, but he is male so seems suspicious'. The scam was sold on her gender ("successful female entrepreneur"), so unfortunately it's going to be part of the heuristic. Male-led scams aren't sold on the gender of the scammer; gender is completely ignored (No one describes those as "a successful male entrepreneur"). Unfortunately, the gender sale was a big part of the scam. I'm looking at many male-led scams, and they did not sell it based on the gender of the scammer. > Which only proofs how deep sexism is rooted. No, it only proves that you have ideology deeply rooted. I believe you see sexism everywhere. The type of person you just want to say "oookay, huh, is sexism here, in the room with us?"

kelseyfrog 1mo ago
I'd hesitate to jump to the conclusion that Holmes had editorial control over the way journalists portrayed her. The idea that a 'young woman overcoming the odds' story sells more than 'young man overcoming the odds' doesn't take any leaps of faith to explain. That doesn't mean that Holmes didn't benefit from such coverage, she obviously did, but to call it part of the scam as if it was under her control seems a bit far fetched.
- FireBeyond 1mo ago
  If you read a lot of the in depth reporting, and what came up at trial, Holmes and Bagwani themselves and their PR team pushed it heavily. The media lapped it up but she was fully "leaned in".
  - expedition32 1mo ago
    It wouldn't have worked if we lived in a world were start ups being led by women was normal and investors didn't think with their dicks. But alas.
    - lelanthran 1mo ago
      It wouldn't have worked if people weren't biased in favour of women.
      - kelseyfrog 1mo ago
        The evidence indicates that the story sold. Inferring biases from that example doesn't pass the smell test.
- lelanthran 1mo ago
  > I'd hesitate to jump to the conclusion that Holmes had editorial control over the way journalists portrayed her. We're going to find out anyway in the movie how she markets herself (and maybe how she marketed herself in the past).
epistasis 1mo ago
No, that's just sexism backfilling which things to discriminate against. She was sold as a successful Stanford dropout, a genius who had a simple idea and assembled a very powerful group of people to push the idea and a ton of funding. Nobody is saying we shouldn't trust Stanford dropouts anymore.
- lelanthran 1mo ago
  > She was sold as a successful Stanford dropout Is, uh, "sexism" in the room with us now?
  - epistasis 1mo ago
    Obviously? Just because a fish doesn't see water doesn't mean it's not there. They're just so used to it that they don't have the concept of "not water." Look at this entire thread: Holmes was widely acknowledged to have a board that got her contracts that she should never have gotten. She got her investment money because of family connections. Yet this entire thread is all about "oh but she was a woman and woman have it easy" despite no other women to point at all. The lack of critical thinking is just astounding, usually HN is far more sharp.
    - alyeska2 1mo ago
      Your bias and/or obsession are blinding you to the situation here. There are hundreds of Standord dropouts running startups. And if they do fraud, people call it out, the media reports it as fraud, investors and customers leave, and that's the end. But Holmes successfully marketed herself with gender as a central part of her story, so that people like you would defend her, promote her and dismiss criticism against the company or product because you're so sure that it's sexism and not legitimate criticism. The only reason the Theranos fraud got as far as it did was because everyone calling it a fraud got silenced and cancelled as sexists. Now that it's finally over they're saying "See! We told you!" and yet you persist in "No, you're just a sexist".
      - 1mo ago
AlexeyBelov 1mo ago
> Male-led scams aren't sold on the gender of the scammer Male is still the default gender in society. Especially in SV.

kelseyfrog 1mo ago

I'd hesitate to jump to the conclusion that Holmes had editorial control over the way journalists portrayed her. The idea that a 'young woman overcoming the odds' story sells more than 'young man overcoming the odds' doesn't take any leaps of faith to explain. That doesn't mean that Holmes didn't benefit from such coverage, she obviously did, but to call it part of the scam as if it was under her control seems a bit far fetched.

FireBeyond 1mo ago
If you read a lot of the in depth reporting, and what came up at trial, Holmes and Bagwani themselves and their PR team pushed it heavily. The media lapped it up but she was fully "leaned in".
- expedition32 1mo ago
  It wouldn't have worked if we lived in a world were start ups being led by women was normal and investors didn't think with their dicks. But alas.
  - lelanthran 1mo ago
    It wouldn't have worked if people weren't biased in favour of women.
    - kelseyfrog 1mo ago
      The evidence indicates that the story sold. Inferring biases from that example doesn't pass the smell test.
lelanthran 1mo ago
> I'd hesitate to jump to the conclusion that Holmes had editorial control over the way journalists portrayed her. We're going to find out anyway in the movie how she markets herself (and maybe how she marketed herself in the past).

epistasis 1mo ago

No, that's just sexism backfilling which things to discriminate against. She was sold as a successful Stanford dropout, a genius who had a simple idea and assembled a very powerful group of people to push the idea and a ton of funding. Nobody is saying we shouldn't trust Stanford dropouts anymore.

lelanthran 1mo ago
> She was sold as a successful Stanford dropout Is, uh, "sexism" in the room with us now?
- epistasis 1mo ago
  Obviously? Just because a fish doesn't see water doesn't mean it's not there. They're just so used to it that they don't have the concept of "not water." Look at this entire thread: Holmes was widely acknowledged to have a board that got her contracts that she should never have gotten. She got her investment money because of family connections. Yet this entire thread is all about "oh but she was a woman and woman have it easy" despite no other women to point at all. The lack of critical thinking is just astounding, usually HN is far more sharp.
  - alyeska2 1mo ago
    Your bias and/or obsession are blinding you to the situation here. There are hundreds of Standord dropouts running startups. And if they do fraud, people call it out, the media reports it as fraud, investors and customers leave, and that's the end. But Holmes successfully marketed herself with gender as a central part of her story, so that people like you would defend her, promote her and dismiss criticism against the company or product because you're so sure that it's sexism and not legitimate criticism. The only reason the Theranos fraud got as far as it did was because everyone calling it a fraud got silenced and cancelled as sexists. Now that it's finally over they're saying "See! We told you!" and yet you persist in "No, you're just a sexist".
    - 1mo ago

AlexeyBelov 1mo ago

> Male-led scams aren't sold on the gender of the scammer Male is still the default gender in society. Especially in SV.