Female Privilege or Femme Fatale?

[Bronzeage]

So a woman just has to be above average charisma to make a billion dollar company then. Hmmm...if that's a real privilege, then why are most companies led by men, and why were most executives for Theranos men. It appears people are trying to make a general case out of an exception.

I understand she had a lot of entrepreneur charisma, question is, did she have some other, specific to women, type of charisma. The guy thinks she might.

If you put it that way, I'm rapidly losing sympathy for anyone who was taken in by this scam.

I spent a long time in the car fixing business. One of the occupational hazards is encounters with women who have a specific kind of charisma. We even have a name for it, "toolbox pussy." It may be difficult to believe, but there are women who will use charisma to flatter and charm a mechanic, with the hope that he will take care of her problem at no cost, or at least a lower price. It seldom comes to an actual exchange of sex for work, because the landlord is expecting cash. She may really want her car fixed, but not enough to fuck you and him. Any mechanic more than a year into his career has already learned that his big red toolbox did not suddenly make him any handsomer or attractive and it's his money on the line. It makes the charisma very easy to overcome.

I don't think it's any different in the financial world, but it makes a better story than a tale about a bunch of guys who weren't very good at their job.

 

[barbos]

So a woman just has to be above average charisma to make a billion dollar company then. Hmmm...if that's a real privilege, then why are most companies led by men, and why were most executives for Theranos men. It appears people are trying to make a general case out of an exception.

I understand she had a lot of entrepreneur charisma, question is, did she have some other, specific to women, type of charisma. The guy thinks she might.

If you put it that way, I'm rapidly losing sympathy for anyone who was taken in by this scam.

I spent a long time in the car fixing business. One of the occupational hazards is encounters with women who have a specific kind of charisma. We even have a name for it, "toolbox pussy." It may be difficult to believe, but there are women who will use charisma to flatter and charm a mechanic, with the hope that he will take care of her problem at no cost, or at least a lower price. It seldom comes to an actual exchange of sex for work, because the landlord is expecting cash. She may really want her car fixed, but not enough to fuck you and him. Any mechanic more than a year into his career has already learned that his big red toolbox did not suddenly make him any handsomer or attractive and it's his money on the line. It makes the charisma very easy to overcome.

I don't think it's any different in the financial world, but it makes a better story than a tale about a bunch of guys who weren't very good at their job.

As I said the guy thinks she might, I myself doubt that.
Also my impression is that mechanics routinely overcharge female clients. Also I once saw a car shop where they had female receptionists and clearly were trying to scam people with fancy expensive diagnostics. Shop was near place with a lot of foreigners. Then there are used cars salesmen.

 

[dismal]

So a woman just has to be above average charisma to make a billion dollar company then. Hmmm...if that's a real privilege, then why are most companies led by men, and why were most executives for Theranos men. It appears people are trying to make a general case out of an exception.

I understand she had a lot of entrepreneur charisma, question is, did she have some other, specific to women, type of charisma. The guy thinks she might.

If you put it that way, I'm rapidly losing sympathy for anyone who was taken in by this scam.

I spent a long time in the car fixing business. One of the occupational hazards is encounters with women who have a specific kind of charisma. We even have a name for it, "toolbox pussy." It may be difficult to believe, but there are women who will use charisma to flatter and charm a mechanic, with the hope that he will take care of her problem at no cost, or at least a lower price. It seldom comes to an actual exchange of sex for work, because the landlord is expecting cash. She may really want her car fixed, but not enough to fuck you and him. Any mechanic more than a year into his career has already learned that his big red toolbox did not suddenly make him any handsomer or attractive and it's his money on the line. It makes the charisma very easy to overcome.

I don't think it's any different in the financial world, but it makes a better story than a tale about a bunch of guys who weren't very good at their job.

Most of the people being referred to as having been taken in by her are not the professional investors. They are the dignitaries and wealthy families, and the one guy at Walgreens. It seems like most people who actually did a little diligence found the story did not hold up well.

 

[blastula]

Holmes's trial for fraud is currently taking place, closing arguments this week. It's been a long trial, started 3 months ago.

Elizabeth Holmes trial: the key evidence jurors will consider

As the Theranos trial enters its final stage, jurors must decide whether Holmes misled investors

amp.ft.com

 

[RVonse]

Another article here: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/08/technology/elizabeth-holmes-theranos-trial-defense.html

"And she focused on Ramesh Balwani, her ex-boyfriend and business partner, who she said was responsible for overstated financial projections and problems in Theranos’s lab.
Mr. Balwani, who is known as Sunny and is roughly two decades older than she is, was also controlling and abusive, Ms. Holmes testified. He had prescribed her schedule, diet, self-presentation and whom she could see, she said. He also forced her to have sex with him, she said.

When asked how that had affected her work at Theranos, Ms. Holmes said it was difficult to separate where his influence began and ended. In legal filings before the trial, Mr. Balwani strongly denied allegations of abuse."

We will soon see what the verdict is. But after the passage of 2 more years we can now clearly see how utterly clairvoyant Truasti and the OP were with the anticipation of female privilege.

Obviously Holmes will get off on grounds that she was not really running anything and that the boyfriend was the evil mastermind fraudster behind all of this. Hell, the boyfriend was even controlling and abusive! How will anyone possibly put Holmes in jail now?!! She was just a beautiful face for the marketing of the venture capital. The boyfriend was an assistant in name only....he was the one running everything after all. Let us see what his sentence is compared to Holmes.

Female privilege in its finest hour.

 

[laughing dog]

Another article here: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/08/technology/elizabeth-holmes-theranos-trial-defense.html

"And she focused on Ramesh Balwani, her ex-boyfriend and business partner, who she said was responsible for overstated financial projections and problems in Theranos’s lab.
Mr. Balwani, who is known as Sunny and is roughly two decades older than she is, was also controlling and abusive, Ms. Holmes testified. He had prescribed her schedule, diet, self-presentation and whom she could see, she said. He also forced her to have sex with him, she said.

When asked how that had affected her work at Theranos, Ms. Holmes said it was difficult to separate where his influence began and ended. In legal filings before the trial, Mr. Balwani strongly denied allegations of abuse."

We will soon see what the verdict is. But after the passage of 2 more years we can now clearly see how utterly clairvoyant Truasti and the OP were with the anticipation of female privilege.

Obviously Holmes will get off on grounds that she was not really running anything and that the boyfriend was the evil mastermind fraudster behind all of this. Hell, the boyfriend was even controlling and abusive! How will anyone possibly put Holmes in jail now?!! She was just a beautiful face for the marketing of the venture capital. The boyfriend was an assistant in name only....he was the one running everything after all. Let us see what his sentence is compared to Holmes.

Female privilege in its finest hour.

Your conclusion is a bit premature - the jury verdict is not in.

 

[Metaphor]

Another article here: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/08/technology/elizabeth-holmes-theranos-trial-defense.html

"And she focused on Ramesh Balwani, her ex-boyfriend and business partner, who she said was responsible for overstated financial projections and problems in Theranos’s lab.
Mr. Balwani, who is known as Sunny and is roughly two decades older than she is, was also controlling and abusive, Ms. Holmes testified. He had prescribed her schedule, diet, self-presentation and whom she could see, she said. He also forced her to have sex with him, she said.

When asked how that had affected her work at Theranos, Ms. Holmes said it was difficult to separate where his influence began and ended. In legal filings before the trial, Mr. Balwani strongly denied allegations of abuse."

We will soon see what the verdict is. But after the passage of 2 more years we can now clearly see how utterly clairvoyant Truasti and the OP were with the anticipation of female privilege.

Obviously Holmes will get off on grounds that she was not really running anything and that the boyfriend was the evil mastermind fraudster behind all of this. Hell, the boyfriend was even controlling and abusive! How will anyone possibly put Holmes in jail now?!! She was just a beautiful face for the marketing of the venture capital. The boyfriend was an assistant in name only....he was the one running everything after all. Let us see what his sentence is compared to Holmes.

Female privilege in its finest hour.

Your conclusion is a bit premature - the jury verdict is not in.

The verdict isn't in, that's true. But whether the jury is convinced by the defence's 'battered woman syndrome' play is beside the point. Holmes' lawyers thought that presenting Holmes as a defenseless plaything of the big bad man Balwani had (has) a chance.

Is there trial footage? If I were Holmes' lawyers, I'd tell her to drop her affected baritone. Yes, she is still trying to scam people (the jury this time), but her female victim of the patriarchy act would be better conveyed to the punters if she sounded more feminine.

 

[laughing dog]

Another article here: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/08/technology/elizabeth-holmes-theranos-trial-defense.html

"And she focused on Ramesh Balwani, her ex-boyfriend and business partner, who she said was responsible for overstated financial projections and problems in Theranos’s lab.
Mr. Balwani, who is known as Sunny and is roughly two decades older than she is, was also controlling and abusive, Ms. Holmes testified. He had prescribed her schedule, diet, self-presentation and whom she could see, she said. He also forced her to have sex with him, she said.

When asked how that had affected her work at Theranos, Ms. Holmes said it was difficult to separate where his influence began and ended. In legal filings before the trial, Mr. Balwani strongly denied allegations of abuse."

We will soon see what the verdict is. But after the passage of 2 more years we can now clearly see how utterly clairvoyant Truasti and the OP were with the anticipation of female privilege.

Obviously Holmes will get off on grounds that she was not really running anything and that the boyfriend was the evil mastermind fraudster behind all of this. Hell, the boyfriend was even controlling and abusive! How will anyone possibly put Holmes in jail now?!! She was just a beautiful face for the marketing of the venture capital. The boyfriend was an assistant in name only....he was the one running everything after all. Let us see what his sentence is compared to Holmes.

Female privilege in its finest hour.

Your conclusion is a bit premature - the jury verdict is not in.

The verdict isn't in, that's true. But whether the jury is convinced by the defence's 'battered woman syndrome' play is beside the point. Holmes' lawyers thought that presenting Holmes as a defenseless plaything of the big bad man Balwani had (has) a chance.

So? Defense lawyers make such arguments for men as well. If you bothered to read RVonse's post he wrote "Obviously Holmes will get off on grounds that she was not really running anything"

 

[Metaphor]

Another article here: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/08/technology/elizabeth-holmes-theranos-trial-defense.html

"And she focused on Ramesh Balwani, her ex-boyfriend and business partner, who she said was responsible for overstated financial projections and problems in Theranos’s lab.
Mr. Balwani, who is known as Sunny and is roughly two decades older than she is, was also controlling and abusive, Ms. Holmes testified. He had prescribed her schedule, diet, self-presentation and whom she could see, she said. He also forced her to have sex with him, she said.

When asked how that had affected her work at Theranos, Ms. Holmes said it was difficult to separate where his influence began and ended. In legal filings before the trial, Mr. Balwani strongly denied allegations of abuse."

We will soon see what the verdict is. But after the passage of 2 more years we can now clearly see how utterly clairvoyant Truasti and the OP were with the anticipation of female privilege.

Obviously Holmes will get off on grounds that she was not really running anything and that the boyfriend was the evil mastermind fraudster behind all of this. Hell, the boyfriend was even controlling and abusive! How will anyone possibly put Holmes in jail now?!! She was just a beautiful face for the marketing of the venture capital. The boyfriend was an assistant in name only....he was the one running everything after all. Let us see what his sentence is compared to Holmes.

Female privilege in its finest hour.

Your conclusion is a bit premature - the jury verdict is not in.

The verdict isn't in, that's true. But whether the jury is convinced by the defence's 'battered woman syndrome' play is beside the point. Holmes' lawyers thought that presenting Holmes as a defenseless plaything of the big bad man Balwani had (has) a chance.

So? Defense lawyers make such arguments for men as well.

No. Defense lawyers do not portray men as battered and psychologically subordinate to their controlling female partners. It isn't a winning strategy, even if it were true.

If you bothered to read RVonse's post he wrote "Obviously Holmes will get off on grounds that she was not really running anything"

I don't know if Holmes will get off. I've only read bits and pieces about the trial, but the evidence that I have read is so damning, the jury would have to be living in cloud cuckoo land not to see Holmes' criminal behaviour.

Holmes had an impossible product. People bought her dream because she is extremely charismatic with an ego the size of Elon Musk's. If she gets away scot-free, it'll be because society treats women as less capable of being moral agents, even when they are as criminal as Holmes is.

 

[Bronzeage]

Holmes, who is now 34, dropped out of Stanford to found Theranos at 19, and for a few years, her childhood and adult dreams meshed. Theranos’s blood-testing system, which the company said only required a finger prick, made it a “unicorn” — Silicon Valley parlance for a billion-dollar start-up — on paper at least. Blue-chip investors included Rupert Murdoch, Larry Ellison, Carlos Slim, Walmart heirs, President Trump’s secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, and her family, and companies like Safeway and Walgreens, which hoped to set up wellness centers in their stores where customers could have their blood tested without involving a doctor. Theranos’s board was filled with names like former Defense secretary William Perry, former secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former senator Sam Nunn, former Wells Fargo CEO Richard Kovacevich, super-lawyer David Boies, and President Trump’s secretary of Defense James Mattis, who joined in 2013 after retiring as head of U.S. Central Command.

That first Carreyrou story reported that Theranos’s blood-testing machine had significant accuracy issues and had been used for only 15 out of a claimed 240 tests. Subsequent stories revealed that the machines never really worked, would often malfunction, and could lead to inaccurate diagnoses. Today, the investors are gone; Holmes and the former president and chief operating officer of Theranos, Sunny Balwani, who was also her secret boyfriend at the time, are both facing federal criminal investigations, and they have been charged by the SEC with running an “elaborate, years-long fraud.”

Bad Blood

Why did all these old men give her so much money without scrutiny? Is it because she is a women such questions aren't proper? And why is this not a larger story?

There's no particular privilege at work here, other than being young and attractive is always an advantage in business.

 

[Metaphor]

Holmes, who is now 34, dropped out of Stanford to found Theranos at 19, and for a few years, her childhood and adult dreams meshed. Theranos’s blood-testing system, which the company said only required a finger prick, made it a “unicorn” — Silicon Valley parlance for a billion-dollar start-up — on paper at least. Blue-chip investors included Rupert Murdoch, Larry Ellison, Carlos Slim, Walmart heirs, President Trump’s secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, and her family, and companies like Safeway and Walgreens, which hoped to set up wellness centers in their stores where customers could have their blood tested without involving a doctor. Theranos’s board was filled with names like former Defense secretary William Perry, former secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former senator Sam Nunn, former Wells Fargo CEO Richard Kovacevich, super-lawyer David Boies, and President Trump’s secretary of Defense James Mattis, who joined in 2013 after retiring as head of U.S. Central Command.

That first Carreyrou story reported that Theranos’s blood-testing machine had significant accuracy issues and had been used for only 15 out of a claimed 240 tests. Subsequent stories revealed that the machines never really worked, would often malfunction, and could lead to inaccurate diagnoses. Today, the investors are gone; Holmes and the former president and chief operating officer of Theranos, Sunny Balwani, who was also her secret boyfriend at the time, are both facing federal criminal investigations, and they have been charged by the SEC with running an “elaborate, years-long fraud.”

Bad Blood

Why did all these old men give her so much money without scrutiny? Is it because she is a women such questions aren't proper? And why is this not a larger story?

There's no particular privilege at work here, other than being young and attractive is always an advantage in business.

Huh? Of course being attractive is a particular privilege! It's sexed, too. Both attractive men and attractive women get a boost from their attractiveness, but attractive women get a bigger relative boost (or: ugliness is less a barrier to men than it is to women, if you like).

 

[Arctish]

If ugliness is less a barrier to men than it is to women, wouldn't that be an example of male privilege? Men would do better than women overall if that's really the case.

 

[Metaphor]

If ugliness is less a barrier to men than it is to women, wouldn't that be an example of male privilege? Men would do better than women overall if that's really the case.

No, unless there was a population difference in the ugliness of men and women.

Let's say you have four candidates for something (it doesn't matter what - but let's say political office). The four candidates consist of
*A good looking woman (A)
*A good looking man (B)
*An ugly woman (C)
*An ugly man (D)

A and B, whatever other qualities they bring to the table, will be advantaged by their looks, but A will be more advantaged than B. So let's say A gets ++ and B gets a single +

C and D are likewise disadvantaged, but C gets a -- and D gets a single -.

The advantages and disadvantages cancel out at a population level (between the sexes) but it's still better to be attractive no matter what your sex.

 

[laughing dog]

Another article here: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/08/technology/elizabeth-holmes-theranos-trial-defense.html

"And she focused on Ramesh Balwani, her ex-boyfriend and business partner, who she said was responsible for overstated financial projections and problems in Theranos’s lab.
Mr. Balwani, who is known as Sunny and is roughly two decades older than she is, was also controlling and abusive, Ms. Holmes testified. He had prescribed her schedule, diet, self-presentation and whom she could see, she said. He also forced her to have sex with him, she said.

When asked how that had affected her work at Theranos, Ms. Holmes said it was difficult to separate where his influence began and ended. In legal filings before the trial, Mr. Balwani strongly denied allegations of abuse."

We will soon see what the verdict is. But after the passage of 2 more years we can now clearly see how utterly clairvoyant Truasti and the OP were with the anticipation of female privilege.

Obviously Holmes will get off on grounds that she was not really running anything and that the boyfriend was the evil mastermind fraudster behind all of this. Hell, the boyfriend was even controlling and abusive! How will anyone possibly put Holmes in jail now?!! She was just a beautiful face for the marketing of the venture capital. The boyfriend was an assistant in name only....he was the one running everything after all. Let us see what his sentence is compared to Holmes.

Female privilege in its finest hour.

Your conclusion is a bit premature - the jury verdict is not in.

The verdict isn't in, that's true. But whether the jury is convinced by the defence's 'battered woman syndrome' play is beside the point. Holmes' lawyers thought that presenting Holmes as a defenseless plaything of the big bad man Balwani had (has) a chance.

So? Defense lawyers make such arguments for men as well.

No. Defense lawyers do not portray men as battered and psychologically subordinate to their controlling female partners. It isn't a winning strategy, even if it were true.

FFS, defense lawyers will portray men as psychologically subordinate to their controlling criminal partners.

If you bothered to read RVonse's post he wrote "Obviously Holmes will get off on grounds that she was not really running anything"

I don't know if Holmes will get off. I've only read bits and pieces about the trial, but the evidence that I have read is so damning, the jury would have to be living in cloud cuckoo land not to see Holmes' criminal behaviour.

Holmes had an impossible product. People bought her dream because she is extremely charismatic with an ego the size of Elon Musk's. If she gets away scot-free, it'll be because society treats women as less capable of being moral agents, even when they are as criminal as Holmes is.

So, you agree there is no female privilege here, but still you have to argue.

 

[Arctish]

If ugliness is less a barrier to men than it is to women, wouldn't that be an example of male privilege? Men would do better than women overall if that's really the case.

No, unless there was a population difference in the ugliness of men and women.

Let's say you have four candidates for something (it doesn't matter what - but let's say political office). The four candidates consist of
*A good looking woman (A)
*A good looking man (B)
*An ugly woman (C)
*An ugly man (D)

A and B, whatever other qualities they bring to the table, will be advantaged by their looks, but A will be more advantaged than B. So let's say A gets ++ and B gets a single +

C and D are likewise disadvantaged, but C gets a -- and D gets a single -.

The advantages and disadvantages cancel out at a population level (between the sexes) but it's still better to be attractive no matter what your sex.

The advantages and disadvantages don't cancel out, they accrue over time with the least disadvantaged group doing better overall.

*A good looking woman (A)
*A good looking man (B)
*An average looking woman (C)
*An average looking man (D)
*An ugly woman (E)
*An ugly man (F)

If your theory is correct, we can expect D to do slightly better than C, and F much better than E. So the order of advantaged persons would be

*A good looking woman (A)
*A good looking man (B)
*An average looking man (D)
*An average looking woman (C)
*An ugly man (F)
*An ugly woman (E)

Which means 2 of the 3 top spots go to men while 2 of the 3 bottom spots go to women.

 

[Metaphor]

Another article here: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/08/technology/elizabeth-holmes-theranos-trial-defense.html

"And she focused on Ramesh Balwani, her ex-boyfriend and business partner, who she said was responsible for overstated financial projections and problems in Theranos’s lab.
Mr. Balwani, who is known as Sunny and is roughly two decades older than she is, was also controlling and abusive, Ms. Holmes testified. He had prescribed her schedule, diet, self-presentation and whom she could see, she said. He also forced her to have sex with him, she said.

When asked how that had affected her work at Theranos, Ms. Holmes said it was difficult to separate where his influence began and ended. In legal filings before the trial, Mr. Balwani strongly denied allegations of abuse."

We will soon see what the verdict is. But after the passage of 2 more years we can now clearly see how utterly clairvoyant Truasti and the OP were with the anticipation of female privilege.

Obviously Holmes will get off on grounds that she was not really running anything and that the boyfriend was the evil mastermind fraudster behind all of this. Hell, the boyfriend was even controlling and abusive! How will anyone possibly put Holmes in jail now?!! She was just a beautiful face for the marketing of the venture capital. The boyfriend was an assistant in name only....he was the one running everything after all. Let us see what his sentence is compared to Holmes.

Female privilege in its finest hour.

Your conclusion is a bit premature - the jury verdict is not in.

The verdict isn't in, that's true. But whether the jury is convinced by the defence's 'battered woman syndrome' play is beside the point. Holmes' lawyers thought that presenting Holmes as a defenseless plaything of the big bad man Balwani had (has) a chance.

So? Defense lawyers make such arguments for men as well.

No. Defense lawyers do not portray men as battered and psychologically subordinate to their controlling female partners. It isn't a winning strategy, even if it were true.

FFS, defense lawyers will portray men as psychologically subordinate to their controlling criminal partners.

If you bothered to read RVonse's post he wrote "Obviously Holmes will get off on grounds that she was not really running anything"

I don't know if Holmes will get off. I've only read bits and pieces about the trial, but the evidence that I have read is so damning, the jury would have to be living in cloud cuckoo land not to see Holmes' criminal behaviour.

Holmes had an impossible product. People bought her dream because she is extremely charismatic with an ego the size of Elon Musk's. If she gets away scot-free, it'll be because society treats women as less capable of being moral agents, even when they are as criminal as Holmes is.

So, you agree there is no female privilege here, but still you have to argue.

No. I don't agree with that. I disagree with that and I would agree with its exact opposite. Gospa moja, give me strength.

Women get less prison time for committing the same crimes as men. That's female privilege.

Society responds with more sympathy to women who are psychologically frail compared to men who are psychologically frail, and especially to outward signs of that (in this case, affected) psychological frailty. A commentator on the recent Kyle Rittenhouse trial made the stratosphere-piercing insanity-rocket claim that Rittenhouse's 'white male tears' were a ploy to get sympathy. That commenter does not live on Earth. Men's tears do not buy them better treatment. It buys them widespread derision. If Holmes is a good actor I would tell her not to be afraid to be seen crying in public.

Finally, even if Holmes is convicted, it is not because female privilege does not exist. It would be because while female privilege exists, other factors (like unmistakeable, overwhelming evidence of guilt) can still overcome it.)

Like with attractiveness privilege, an ugly candidate can still win over a good looking one. That in no way rules out the presence of attractiveness privilege.

The perceived lesser capability of moral agency of women is sometimes an advantage and sometimes a disadvantage. When you are guilty of a crime as Holmes is, I would say it will work to her advantage.

 

[Metaphor]

The advantages and disadvantages don't cancel out, they accrue over time with the least disadvantaged group doing better overall.

*A good looking woman (A)
*A good looking man (B)
*An average looking woman (C)
*An average looking man (D)
*An ugly woman (E)
*An ugly man (F)

If your theory is correct, we can expect D to do slightly better than C,

Why?

 

[Arctish]

Because 'ugly' and 'not sexually attractive' are linked, and 'not sexually attractive' is something average women are likely to become sooner than average looking men.

 

[Metaphor]

Because 'ugly' and 'not sexually attractive' are linked, and 'not sexually attractive' is something average women are likely to become sooner than average looking men.

I said 'attractive', not 'sexually attractive'. Good looking men get an advantage against ugly men, even when all the decision-makers are heterosexual men.

I believe you are making a distributional argument: that when the entire population is rated (by attractiveness), there would be more women (%) rated 'ugly' than men rated ugly? I do not believe that to be true (given the results of mass-user dating site data) but I don't have firm evidence of it.

 

[Arctish]

Well, I could go looking for the data on how harshly women are judged on their looks as compared to men. Is this a discussion we want to have?