Hacker News Reader

Comment by lelanthran | Hacker News Reader

> 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?"

View on HN

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.

> She was sold as a successful Stanford dropout

Is, uh, "sexism" in the room with us now?

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.

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".

Yeah, when there's the comment of "marketed as a successful woman" it's "by who"? Media jumped on board, but that was heavily the message being pushed by Holmes and Theranos, Bagwani, because it was their lever to stand out. To then say "but not like that" is BS.

// 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.

You are confused about what the thread is about which confirms the point being made that you are looking for offense.

This thread is about my memory of a bschool professor being more excited about holmes gender and age than in what she's actually done (which would also be weird even if holmes turned out to be a non fraud)

The broader point is that my professor was representative of a group of people which wanted Holmes to succeed because of who she was. Did they cause some degree of blindness? Probably!

That's not saying "women have it easy" to any degree. That part is in your head so you are literally offended by something you made up.

> usually HN is far more sharp.

Try steering a fast horse with blinders. Most people here hit a fucking wall at mach 7 when you try to show them reality.

> Try steering a fast horse with blinders. Most people here hit a fucking wall at mach 7 when you try to show them reality.

We're all going to find out when we see the movie anyway, right? We're going to see how she markets herself.

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.

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".

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.

It wouldn't have worked if people weren't biased in favour of women.

The evidence indicates that the story sold. Inferring biases from that example doesn't pass the smell test.

> 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).

> Male-led scams aren't sold on the gender of the scammer

Male is still the default gender in society. Especially in SV.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com