zlacker

This reminds me of Theranos and Elizabeth Holmes. I have to wonder how she may have received criticism of her ideas if there was a baseline of equality of ideas from men and women.

Basically, to over-simplify severely, instead of taking criticism as a way to improve, she took it as an attack, which I think was part of what made Theranos insular, overprotective. It would be a bridge too far to link it to the cheating.

>>csours+(OP)
> to over-simplify severely, instead of taking criticism as a way to improve, she took it as an attack, which I think was part of what made Theranos insular, overprotective

So, one important criticism of Theranos, which was made at various points starting very early on, was this:

"If a substance is present in the patient's bloodstream, you still won't be able to detect it unless it is also present in the blood sample."

Theranos was always offering a product that was not even theoretically possible. Blood samples must be large enough to contain at least one molecule of whatever you're trying to test for, if it's present. When that's what you start out with, how are you supposed to "take criticism as a way to improve"?

>>csours+(OP)
I think that's too speculative. I haven't heard her publicly talk about sexism in a way that would make me think that's how she views the world.

>>thauma+BG
“Theranos wouldn’t have gotten away with it if she hadn’t been attractive” is also some form of weird sexism - said slick conMEN don’t exist or something.

>>bombca+VO
She didn't get away with it. She eventually got caught.

But secretly sleeping with and living with one of her male investors likely was a factor in this debacle dragging on as long as it did and that's not typically an option for most slick conMEN even if they were willing to pursue it because most wealthy, powerful people are heterosexual males.

>>Doreen+lP
Or the real secret which is nobody does due diligence beyond “other people are doing it and must have checked it out”.

>>bombca+tQ
Likely true, but in most cases that doesn't result in a company that is 100 percent pure and unadulterated hot air getting a valuation of $10 Billion (with a B, not an M) and then going to zero overnight when the dirty truth finally comes out.

I have always believed her gender was a factor in this nonsense. (I am a woman and my experiences as a woman having trouble getting taken seriously is part of why I always thought this was crazy stuff and life made sense again once it turned out to be fraud.)

>>ErikVa+AO
I don't have a reference for you right now, but I'm pretty sure I read something like that in 'Bad Blood'

>>Doreen+FQ
> I am a woman and my experiences as a woman having trouble getting taken seriously

That resonates quite strongly with my experience, especially at competitive workplaces (big tech companies in SV). I'm a white straight man, if that matters, though.

>>csours+(OP)
I think the difference there is, it seemed like the board and some of the investors were in on the con.

>>bombca+VO
She's attractive?

>>ErikVa+AO
I've looked a little bit, and I'm not going to defend my assertion very hard, because I don't truly believe it or it's implications very much; it's an interesting question to me.

Anyway here are some references:

https://fortune.com/2015/12/10/elizabeth-holmes-sexism-thera...

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/elizab...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/hannahart/2019/03/31/womens-his... (mainly a summary with links to other articles)