Female Privilege or Femme Fatale?

[Metaphor]

Given the exceedingly small portion of offices in the C suites occupied by females, Metaphor has a point: Very few male CEOs would be able to claim that a female CFO or COO was the Svengali behind his malfeasance. A number of high profile male CEOs have indeed been charged and convicted of criminal charges, including fraud.

Yes, but not only this. Coercive control is perceived as a gendered crime; a crime inflicted on women by men. That's why Holmes could claim she was controlled by Balwani, even though she was his boss.

 

[laughing dog]

None of which apply to your claim.

Your claim was that a 'fact' means something is provable. Your claim was wrong, and, as usual, you refuse to concede you were wrong.

No, it was not. Nothing you posted contradicted my observation.

You are mistaken.

No. You are wrong. A fact does not need to be 'proved' to be a fact, as you claimed. You were wrong and now you are doubling down on your wrongness. Your wrongness is obvious to all and sundry, including dead people.

I did not say a fact needs to be proved. I said it has to be provable. Hence your response is based on a false premise.

Apparently, you feel your assertion that something is a fact makes it so. You are mistaken.

No, the fact that it is a fact makes it so.

Ah, a tautology is not an argument.

I look forward a rational discussion based on the actual facts rather your current nonsense.

The fact is that you were wrong about what a fact is, as I proved.

You did prove something but not what you believe.

 

[Metaphor]

No, it was not. Nothing you posted contradicted my observation.

Of course it did.

I did not say a fact needs to be proved.

Yes, you did. You said:

To those familiar with the English language, a fact is something that is proven to be true.

But let's pretend you are not wrong again. Let's pretend you actually said "it has to be provable", as you claim you said in the previous post. Well, that is false too. A fact does not need to be provable to be a fact. Proof did not enter into the definition I posted and which you apparently have accepted. I will post again, for your benefit, the definition of a fact:

Essential Meaning of fact
1 : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence Rapid electronic communication is now a fact.
2 : a true piece of information The book is filled with interesting facts and figures. Those are the (cold) hard facts of the case.

It is a fact that I loaded my dishwasher this morning. That I cannot and did not prove it does not make it not a fact.

Ah, a tautology is not an argument.

And that's a fact.

 

[Swammerdami]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Non. You are wrong. Indeed, it is a fact that you are wrong.

You are mistaken.

,

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Incorrect.

You are mistaken.

.

.

Incorrect.

... You are mistaken.

.

.

.

.

While I'm pleased to see that the new board's software accepts nested quotes better than the old board did, I'm not sure this is an unmixed blessing. In fact, this exchange reminds me of Leonard Cohen's famous song:

I'm turning tricks, I'm getting fixed,
I'm back on Boogie Street.
I guess they won't exchange the gifts
That you were meant to keep.
And quiet is the thought of you,
The file on you complete,
Except what we forgot to do,
A Thousand Nestings Deep.

 

[Toni]

Given the exceedingly small portion of offices in the C suites occupied by females, Metaphor has a point: Very few male CEOs would be able to claim that a female CFO or COO was the Svengali behind his malfeasance. A number of high profile male CEOs have indeed been charged and convicted of criminal charges, including fraud.

Yes, but not only this. Coercive control is perceived as a gendered crime; a crime inflicted on women by men. That's why Holmes could claim she was controlled by Balwani, even though she was his boss.

Perceived is key here. Please note that Holmes' relationship with Balwani by some years and how key he was to her founding her company. He was her mentor long before she started up the company. The age disparity, given Holmes' youth, is also a large factor. She wasn't a full adult in the legal sense nor in terms of brain science when their affair began. She was still an adolescent. I'm also fairly certain that her youth was part of the appeal/marketing strategy for investors. This happened during the height of Silicon Valley and all of the wunderkind associated with tech. FFS, she even dressed like Steve Jobs.

 

[laughing dog]

None of which apply to your claim.

Your claim was that a 'fact' means something is provable. Your claim was wrong, and, as usual, you refuse to concede you were wrong.

No, it was not. Nothing you posted contradicted my observation.

You are mistaken.

No. You are wrong. A fact does not need to be 'proved' to be a fact, as you claimed. You were wrong and now you are doubling down on your wrongness. Your wrongness is obvious to all and sundry, including dead people.

I did not say a fact needs to be proved. I said it has to be provable. Hence your response is based on a false premise.

Apparently, you feel your assertion that something is a fact makes it so. You are mistaken.

No, the fact that it is a fact makes it so.

Ah, a tautology is not an argument.

I look forward a rational discussion based on the actual facts rather your current nonsense.

The fact is that you were wrong about what a fact is, as I proved.

I

No, it was not. Nothing you posted contradicted my observation.

Of course it did.

I did not say a fact needs to be proved.

Yes, you did. You said:

That was slip. Interestingly, you ignore that I have written
I also wrote in a post "A fact is provable as true. "

To those familiar with the English language, a fact is something that is proven to be true.

But let's pretend you are not wrong again. Let's pretend you actually said "it has to be provable", as you claim you said in the previous post. Well, that is false too. A fact does not need to be provable to be a fact.

You are mistaken not withstanding the amount of drivel you post in defense of your mistake.

Proof did not enter into the definition I posted and which you apparently have accepted. I will post again, for your benefit, the definition of a fact:

Essential Meaning of fact
1 : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence Rapid electronic communication is now a fact.
2 : a true piece of information The book is filled with interesting facts and figures. Those are the (cold) hard facts of the case.

It is a fact that I loaded my dishwasher this morning. That I cannot and did not prove it does not make it not a fact.

It is provable (or at least for a competent person). Claiming something is a fact does not make it so, no matter how much wish it to be true.

Please continue on with your truthiness. I am not going to waste any more time or bandwidth on your nonsense.

 

[Metaphor]

That was slip. Interestingly, you ignore that I have written
I also wrote in a post "A fact is provable as true. "

You are wrong whether you meant 'facts are proven' or 'facts are provable'. I posted the definition of fact twice. There are facts about the world that will never be proven and are not provable. You are simply wrong in what you think a fact is.

It is provable (or at least for a competent person). Claiming something is a fact does not make it so, no matter how much wish it to be true.

I never claimed that claiming something as a fact made it a fact.

The fact that it is a fact makes it a fact. Claiming it merely means I know it is a fact.

Please continue on with your truthiness. I am not going to waste any more time or bandwidth on your nonsense.

Full Definition of fact

1a : something that has actual existence space exploration is now a fact
b : an actual occurrence prove the fact of damage
2 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality These are the hard facts of the case.
3 : the quality of being actual : actuality a question of fact hinges on evidence
4 : a thing done: such as
a : crime accessory after the fact
b archaic : action
c obsolete : feat
5 archaic : performance, doing
in fact
: in truth He looks younger, but in fact, he is 60 years old.

 

[RVonse]

Given the exceedingly small portion of offices in the C suites occupied by females, Metaphor has a point: Very few male CEOs would be able to claim that a female CFO or COO was the Svengali behind his malfeasance. A number of high profile male CEOs have indeed been charged and convicted of criminal charges, including fraud.

Yes, but not only this. Coercive control is perceived as a gendered crime; a crime inflicted on women by men. That's why Holmes could claim she was controlled by Balwani, even though she was his boss.

Perceived is key here. Please note that Holmes' relationship with Balwani by some years and how key he was to her founding her company. He was her mentor long before she started up the company. The age disparity, given Holmes' youth, is also a large factor. She wasn't a full adult in the legal sense nor in terms of brain science when their affair began. She was still an adolescent. I'm also fairly certain that her youth was part of the appeal/marketing strategy for investors. This happened during the height of Silicon Valley and all of the wunderkind associated with tech. FFS, she even dressed like Steve Jobs.

Good point Toni. Besides Metophor being 100% correct, you have just touched upon something else not yet discussed AFAIK here.

In a normal world, feminists would be greatly disturbed hearing this lawyer arguing such a defense for Holmes. After all, feminists would want us all to believe that females are equal to men. But how in the world can we believe that females are equal to men if we are defending a CEO women for not being able to lead and manage a company without being directly influenced by her subordinate?

The feminist seem to be perfectly fine with all of this....I've not heard of any feminist objecting to this defense, have you?

But the feminists aren't objecting because they speak out of both sides of their mouths. They know good and well that men and women really are not equal in every way. They just want all the selfish advantages they can get for themselves.

 

[Arctish]

The feminist seem to be perfectly fine with all of this....I've not heard of any feminist objecting to this defense, have you?

But the feminists aren't objecting because they speak out of both sides of their mouths. They know good and well that men and women really are not equal in every way. They just want all the selfish advantages they can get for themselves.

Are you saying you have heard Feminists say they were perfectly fine with this, or are you saying you haven't heard or read any objections to it from Feminists?

Because if you look for Feminist commentary on Elizabeth Holmes' defense strategy, you'll find opinion pieces like this one:

The reported conduct (which Balwani denies) is appalling. But can abuse excuse abuse? Or does exploiting trauma as an excuse for hurting others only cause more harm?

The case is simpler when it comes to those movers and shakers Holmes got to put their stamps on her sham. Holmes played on her femininity to impressive effect, even as she modulated her voice to a baritone and her wardrobe to a black-turtlenecked Steve Jobs sendup. She caught the notice of powerful men because she emphasized, in adopting these traits so incongruous with her appearance, that she wasn’t one of them — and that, all the same, she was playing their game.
When she succeeded, she was notable because she wasn’t a man. Now, in her ignominy, she suggests she wasn’t responsible for any of it — because she wasn’t a man. She can only have it both ways if society is still sexist enough to think this counts as feminism.

I haven't found anything written by a Feminist that indicates approval of Holmes' blame-the man strategy. Have you?

 

[Toni]

Given the exceedingly small portion of offices in the C suites occupied by females, Metaphor has a point: Very few male CEOs would be able to claim that a female CFO or COO was the Svengali behind his malfeasance. A number of high profile male CEOs have indeed been charged and convicted of criminal charges, including fraud.

Yes, but not only this. Coercive control is perceived as a gendered crime; a crime inflicted on women by men. That's why Holmes could claim she was controlled by Balwani, even though she was his boss.

Perceived is key here. Please note that Holmes' relationship with Balwani by some years and how key he was to her founding her company. He was her mentor long before she started up the company. The age disparity, given Holmes' youth, is also a large factor. She wasn't a full adult in the legal sense nor in terms of brain science when their affair began. She was still an adolescent. I'm also fairly certain that her youth was part of the appeal/marketing strategy for investors. This happened during the height of Silicon Valley and all of the wunderkind associated with tech. FFS, she even dressed like Steve Jobs.

Good point Toni. Besides Metophor being 100% correct, you have just touched upon something else not yet discussed AFAIK here.

In a normal world, feminists would be greatly disturbed hearing this lawyer arguing such a defense for Holmes. After all, feminists would want us all to believe that females are equal to men. But how in the world can we believe that females are equal to men if we are defending a CEO women for not being able to lead and manage a company without being directly influenced by her subordinate?

The feminist seem to be perfectly fine with all of this....I've not heard of any feminist objecting to this defense, have you?

But the feminists aren't objecting because they speak out of both sides of their mouths. They know good and well that men and women really are not equal in every way. They just want all the selfish advantages they can get for themselves.

You're really reaching here. Metaphor is not 100% correct unless you squint your eyes quite a lot.

Holmes was Balwani's titular boss but was she his boss in any meaningful way? More importantly, how much does it matter?

At best, Holmes was an over praised over achiever whose ego and youth got the best of her when she attempted to sell a product that did not yet exist. This really wasn't a big deal in the tech world, as I understand it. People over promised, then scrambled to deliver and even if they didn't, often exited with millions of dollars. But she wasn't playing in the computer tech world. She was marketing herself and her unproven, substantially non-existent product by casting herself as a female Steve Jobs. I suppose Balwani was supposed to be Wozniak?
I can see how she could get caught up in something that was far larger and far more complicated than she could understand. Probably Balwani exerted undo influence and even control over her. But that does not mean that she's blameless for her deceptions. At some point in all of this, she reached adulthood and with it, agency and culpability.

Balwani should go down, as well.

 

[Metaphor]

Holmes was Balwani's titular boss but was she his boss in any meaningful way? More importantly, how much does it matter?

Yes. Holmes was his boss in a meaningful way. In the same way my boss is my boss in a meaningful way. That way is: he has formal professional and economic power over me that I don't have over him.

It's also possible that Holmes had significant informal power over Balwani, as the younger, richer, better looking, more sexually desirable, and more charismatic of the two.

At best, Holmes was an over praised over achiever whose ego and youth got the best of her when she attempted to sell a product that did not yet exist.

No, the product was an impossibility. That's significantly different from 'not yet existing'.

This really wasn't a big deal in the tech world, as I understand it. People over promised, then scrambled to deliver and even if they didn't, often exited with millions of dollars. But she wasn't playing in the computer tech world. She was marketing herself and her unproven, substantially non-existent product by casting herself as a female Steve Jobs. I suppose Balwani was supposed to be Wozniak?

Just because Holmes was a self-promoter who thought herself a female Jobs does not mean Balwani had shared delusional disorder.

I can see how she could get caught up in something that was far larger and far more complicated than she could understand. Probably Balwani exerted undo influence and even control over her. But that does not mean that she's blameless for her deceptions. At some point in all of this, she reached adulthood and with it, agency and culpability.

Balwani should go down, as well.

There's no doubt in my mind that Balwani also engaged in fraud.

 

[laughing dog]

In a normal world, feminists would be greatly disturbed hearing this lawyer arguing such a defense for Holmes. After all, feminists would want us all to believe that females are equal to men. But how in the world can we believe that females are equal to men if we are defending a CEO women for not being able to lead and manage a company without being directly influenced by her subordinate?

Your question is illogical. Equality of the sexes means equality in term of the law and treatment. It does not prevent someone of one sex being abused or unduly influenced by a member of the other sex.

I do suspect most feminists would be upset by Holmes' defense. I have not been paying much attention to other people's views on this case, but clearly you have. Do you have any links to the reactions of feminists to this defense?

The feminist seem to be perfectly fine with all of this....I've not heard of any feminist objecting to this defense, have you?

But the feminists aren't objecting because they speak out of both sides of their mouths. They know good and well that men and women really are not equal in every way. They just want all the selfish advantages they can get for themselves.

 

[Arctish]

Anyone else remember this?

Former Enron Chairman Blames Others for Collapse

 

[Toni]

Holmes was Balwani's titular boss but was she his boss in any meaningful way? More importantly, how much does it matter?

Yes. Holmes was his boss in a meaningful way. In the same way my boss is my boss in a meaningful way. That way is: he has formal professional and economic power over me that I don't have over him.

It's also possible that Holmes had significant informal power over Balwani, as the younger, richer, better looking, more sexually desirable, and more charismatic of the two.

At best, Holmes was an over praised over achiever whose ego and youth got the best of her when she attempted to sell a product that did not yet exist.

No, the product was an impossibility. That's significantly different from 'not yet existing'.

This really wasn't a big deal in the tech world, as I understand it. People over promised, then scrambled to deliver and even if they didn't, often exited with millions of dollars. But she wasn't playing in the computer tech world. She was marketing herself and her unproven, substantially non-existent product by casting herself as a female Steve Jobs. I suppose Balwani was supposed to be Wozniak?

Just because Holmes was a self-promoter who thought herself a female Jobs does not mean Balwani had shared delusional disorder.

I can see how she could get caught up in something that was far larger and far more complicated than she could understand. Probably Balwani exerted undo influence and even control over her. But that does not mean that she's blameless for her deceptions. At some point in all of this, she reached adulthood and with it, agency and culpability.

Balwani should go down, as well.

There's no doubt in my mind that Balwani also engaged in fraud.

I don’t think that Holmes realized that her product was not possible because she lacked the scientific background to understand why it was not possible. I think that at age 19, she had never been told that she was anything other than brilliant and beautiful and that all of her ideas were genius. I think she was arrogant and naive and delusional and at least in the beginning, she believed in her idea. She just had no idea how to execute it—or that it was t possible to execute it. I think that Balwani helped in all of those delusions and certainly put a lot of pressure on her to do things his way. If they had been equals in their relationship, I would have a harder time believing that, but he’s about 20 years older than she is and she was quite young when the affair began.

I’m not convinced it was her idea to market herself as a female Jobs. She went along with it but I’m not sure it was her idea.

 

[Metaphor]

I don’t think that Holmes realized that her product was not possible because she lacked the scientific background to understand why it was not possible.

People told her. Professors told her.

I think that at age 19, she had never been told that she was anything other than brilliant and beautiful and that all of her ideas were genius. I think she was arrogant and naive and delusional and at least in the beginning, she believed in her idea. She just had no idea how to execute it—or that it was t possible to execute it. I think that Balwani helped in all of those delusions and certainly put a lot of pressure on her to do things his way. If they had been equals in their relationship, I would have a harder time believing that, but he’s about 20 years older than she is and she was quite young when the affair began.

I’m not convinced it was her idea to market herself as a female Jobs. She went along with it but I’m not sure it was her idea.

I'm convinced white western women often dress themselves and even decide what to wear. They have agency that way.

 

[Toni]

I don’t think that Holmes realized that her product was not possible because she lacked the scientific background to understand why it was not possible.

People told her. Professors told her.

I think that at age 19, she had never been told that she was anything other than brilliant and beautiful and that all of her ideas were genius. I think she was arrogant and naive and delusional and at least in the beginning, she believed in her idea. She just had no idea how to execute it—or that it was t possible to execute it. I think that Balwani helped in all of those delusions and certainly put a lot of pressure on her to do things his way. If they had been equals in their relationship, I would have a harder time believing that, but he’s about 20 years older than she is and she was quite young when the affair began.

I’m not convinced it was her idea to market herself as a female Jobs. She went along with it but I’m not sure it was her idea.

I'm convinced white western women often dress themselves and even decide what to wear. They have agency that way.

Sure they do. But some women are cajoled into wearing clothing that is too modest or too revealing to suit their own preferences. Sometimes, it's worse than being cajoled or manipulated. Sometimes force is involved. I've known such women. I've seen the bruises. I've known the men. Much more innocuously, my sister pierced her ears when she was 21, a senior in college and then hid her ears in fear of our father's disapproval. He would not have hit her or forced her to take the earrings out or yelled at her or withdrawn support (we paid our own way in college, largely through academic scholarships) or made her move out. But he would have been displeased and maybe disappointed. My sister is extremely bright, earned degrees in mathematics and physics, and advanced degree in physics, male dominated fields. She mostly worked in male dominated fields, too. She has spent most of her life going toe to toe with men and not backing down. But they were not her father. My sister was always truthful but always carefully curated the truth she told our father. His disapproval held a great deal of power over her. I don't think he ever realized it and certainly did not intend it. But it was there. That might seem like a big leap to make: my sister and my father and Holmes and Balwani but the age difference is almost the same.

I have no idea whether Balwani was physically abusive or manipulative or how much he suggested or cajoled or how much they plotted together. I have no idea whose idea it was that she dress as Jobs did, that she cull her wardrobe to eliminate any energy that would be spent making a choice so that she could focus only on Theranos. She says she was forced. That may or may not be true. I do know how powerful the opinions of an older lover can be to a 19 or 20 year old girl.

I don't think it matters much whether she was forced to dress a certain way or was merely urged. The only reason that I've argued that Holmes was perhaps in an abusive or at least highly manipulative relationship as she claims that is that in the OP, she's being presented as either an example of female privilege or a femme fatale. I think she's obviously not a femme fatale, luring some poor married man into her bed and keeping him there to help her found and run a company built on an idea that couldn't work (or at least not as she had imagined it). Privilege? Yep, she was raised with a lot of privilege--and with the down sides that come with it. Believe it or not, there are down sides. I would not trade my upbringing for hers. That privilege though is wealth, not gender. Most of the wealthy women I know are carefully groomed to only present a certain picture to the world at large, to always look and act a certain way. Ick.

Does that mean that her parents are to blame? No, I don't think so. I think that Holmes is culpable for the fraud that she committed. I think that it is entirely possible to make a good argument that she didn't initially intend it as fraud and maybe didn't even recognize it as fraud. It is not hard to see how difficult it could have been to extricate herself from following through on all the promises she made, given the millions and millions and millions of dollars thrown at her, all the press, all the pressure. Balwani would have made it all more intense but at some point, she had agency, she had the ability to say that testing is not going as well as planned, etc. etc. etc. She didn't. At some point she knew it was fraud and still she continued. Maybe she didn't know how to admit failure. Maybe Balwani exerted so much pressure she didn't know how to get off that track.

Based on what I've read, she's certainly guilty of fraud and so is Balwani. I just cannot bring myself to have any sympathy for her mega millionaire donors who were so stupid to not vet the product they were investing in. Or rather, not hiring people to properly vet the project as vetting was far, far, far below their pay grade.

 

[Metaphor]

I don’t think that Holmes realized that her product was not possible because she lacked the scientific background to understand why it was not possible.

People told her. Professors told her.

I think that at age 19, she had never been told that she was anything other than brilliant and beautiful and that all of her ideas were genius. I think she was arrogant and naive and delusional and at least in the beginning, she believed in her idea. She just had no idea how to execute it—or that it was t possible to execute it. I think that Balwani helped in all of those delusions and certainly put a lot of pressure on her to do things his way. If they had been equals in their relationship, I would have a harder time believing that, but he’s about 20 years older than she is and she was quite young when the affair began.

I’m not convinced it was her idea to market herself as a female Jobs. She went along with it but I’m not sure it was her idea.

I'm convinced white western women often dress themselves and even decide what to wear. They have agency that way.

Sure they do. But some women are cajoled into wearing clothing that is too modest or too revealing to suit their own preferences. Sometimes, it's worse than being cajoled or manipulated. Sometimes force is involved. I've known such women. I've seen the bruises. I've known the men. Much more innocuously, my sister pierced her ears when she was 21, a senior in college and then hid her ears in fear of our father's disapproval. He would not have hit her or forced her to take the earrings out or yelled at her or withdrawn support (we paid our own way in college, largely through academic scholarships) or made her move out. But he would have been displeased and maybe disappointed. My sister is extremely bright, earned degrees in mathematics and physics, and advanced degree in physics, male dominated fields. She mostly worked in male dominated fields, too. She has spent most of her life going toe to toe with men and not backing down. But they were not her father. My sister was always truthful but always carefully curated the truth she told our father. His disapproval held a great deal of power over her. I don't think he ever realized it and certainly did not intend it. But it was there. That might seem like a big leap to make: my sister and my father and Holmes and Balwani but the age difference is almost the same.

It is a leap to make. The relationship that women have with their fathers is not the same as the relationship women have with their male romantic partners. But in any case, I have not seen Holmes claim that dressing like Steve Jobs was someone else's idea.

I have no idea whether Balwani was physically abusive or manipulative or how much he suggested or cajoled or how much they plotted together. I have no idea whose idea it was that she dress as Jobs did, that she cull her wardrobe to eliminate any energy that would be spent making a choice so that she could focus only on Theranos. She says she was forced. That may or may not be true. I do know how powerful the opinions of an older lover can be to a 19 or 20 year old girl.

I don't think it matters much whether she was forced to dress a certain way or was merely urged. The only reason that I've argued that Holmes was perhaps in an abusive or at least highly manipulative relationship as she claims that is that in the OP, she's being presented as either an example of female privilege or a femme fatale. I think she's obviously not a femme fatale, luring some poor married man into her bed and keeping him there to help her found and run a company built on an idea that couldn't work (or at least not as she had imagined it). Privilege? Yep, she was raised with a lot of privilege--and with the down sides that come with it. Believe it or not, there are down sides. I would not trade my upbringing for hers. That privilege though is wealth, not gender. Most of the wealthy women I know are carefully groomed to only present a certain picture to the world at large, to always look and act a certain way. Ick.

No. Holmes has female privilege and I've already explained how it has manifested. Making a claim that an opposite-sex subordinate had coercive control over you is a claim that would not make it out of the starting gate for a male CEO. It is inconceivable as a successful defense for a man. But Holmes has built her own defense on the claim.

Based on what I've read, she's certainly guilty of fraud and so is Balwani. I just cannot bring myself to have any sympathy for her mega millionaire donors who were so stupid to not vet the product they were investing in. Or rather, not hiring people to properly vet the project as vetting was far, far, far below their pay grade.

Well I don't think even rich, stupid people should be defrauded.

 

[Toni]

Ugh, it's late here and my mouse isn't working well enough to do the correct quote/response thing so I'll just say:

Yes, father/daughter is very different than female/male sexual relationship but when the age difference is what it is between Holmes and Balwani and given that the relationship started when she was 19 (or 18), there's still a lot of control being exerted.

You assert 'female privilege' but you're incorrect. Claiming that an intimate partner had coercive control over the other person generally has the male being the dominant person, yes. But it is hardly 'female privilege' to claim that a male intimate partner exercised coercive control over you if HE EXERCISED COERCIVE CONTROL. You don't find the claim credible. I do find it credible. It would similarly be as credible if Holmes were middle aged and Balwani were the 19 year old wonderkind and he claimed she was controlling and abusive.

I don't find it sufficient to let her off the hook but she's certainly allowed to plead her case. Now, if this relationship had begun when she was 28 or 29 instead of 18 or 19, I'd give it far less weight. But given her age at the time--it would be incredible if he did not have outsize influence over her, particularly in setting up a business. He's old enough to be her father. She was very young.

It is true that it is not legal to defraud rich stupid people but that does not make me feel much sympathy for them.

Again, by my reading of the case, Holmes clearly committed fraud and clearly at some point, she was entirely responsible for her continued actions, even if at the outset, she was overly influenced (abusive or not) by her much older lover, even if she was young and naive at the outset. She knew her idea was failing. She was committing fraud when she set up the testing, presenting results from conventional tests as coming from Theranos platforms. That's fraud and should be cause for more serious criminal charges than merely financial fraud.

I'm in no way arguing that Holmes is a victim in all of this. I think she was arrogant, over-praised and ignorant and easily flattered at the outset. I doubt she had the kinds of checks and balances in her life that most people have. That does not make her innocent.

 

[Metaphor]

Ugh, it's late here and my mouse isn't working well enough to do the correct quote/response thing so I'll just say:

Yes, father/daughter is very different than female/male sexual relationship but when the age difference is what it is between Holmes and Balwani and given that the relationship started when she was 19 (or 18), there's still a lot of control being exerted.

You assert 'female privilege' but you're incorrect. Claiming that an intimate partner had coercive control over the other person generally has the male being the dominant person, yes. But it is hardly 'female privilege' to claim that a male intimate partner exercised coercive control over you if HE EXERCISED COERCIVE CONTROL.

No. I said it is female privilege to be able to claim it as a defense in a criminal case. This is true whether it happened or not. No male CEO would claim coercive control by a subordinate female in his company, whether it happened or not. It is beyond the window of jury belief or sympathy. It is inconceivable that a jury would respond to it or believe it.

You don't find the claim credible. I do find it credible. It would similarly be as credible if Holmes were middle aged and Balwani were the 19 year old wonderkind and he claimed she was controlling and abusive.

Do you mean: if only the ages and sexes were reversed, but not the CEO/subordinate role?

I don't find it sufficient to let her off the hook but she's certainly allowed to plead her case. Now, if this relationship had begun when she was 28 or 29 instead of 18 or 19, I'd give it far less weight. But given her age at the time--it would be incredible if he did not have outsize influence over her, particularly in setting up a business. He's old enough to be her father. She was very young.

It is true that it is not legal to defraud rich stupid people but that does not make me feel much sympathy for them.

Well, it's not just illegal, it's immoral. Your feelings of sympathy for the victims of fraud does not make them less the victims of fraud.

Again, by my reading of the case, Holmes clearly committed fraud and clearly at some point, she was entirely responsible for her continued actions, even if at the outset, she was overly influenced (abusive or not) by her much older lover, even if she was young and naive at the outset. She knew her idea was failing. She was committing fraud when she set up the testing, presenting results from conventional tests as coming from Theranos platforms. That's fraud and should be cause for more serious criminal charges than merely financial fraud.

I'm in no way arguing that Holmes is a victim in all of this. I think she was arrogant, over-praised and ignorant and easily flattered at the outset. I doubt she had the kinds of checks and balances in her life that most people have. That does not make her innocent.

I agree that no matter what happened at the start, even somebody as narcissistic and egotistic as Holmes must have realised that her idea was impossible after a while.

I certainly have less sympathy for Holmes than her rich investors. Her rich investors just wanted money. Holmes wanted money enough to endanger people's health.

 

[Toni]

Ugh, it's late here and my mouse isn't working well enough to do the correct quote/response thing so I'll just say:

Yes, father/daughter is very different than female/male sexual relationship but when the age difference is what it is between Holmes and Balwani and given that the relationship started when she was 19 (or 18), there's still a lot of control being exerted.

You assert 'female privilege' but you're incorrect. Claiming that an intimate partner had coercive control over the other person generally has the male being the dominant person, yes. But it is hardly 'female privilege' to claim that a male intimate partner exercised coercive control over you if HE EXERCISED COERCIVE CONTROL.

No. I said it is female privilege to be able to claim it as a defense in a criminal case. This is true whether it happened or not. No male CEO would claim coercive control by a subordinate female in his company, whether it happened or not. It is beyond the window of jury belief or sympathy. It is inconceivable that a jury would respond to it or believe it.

You don't find the claim credible. I do find it credible. It would similarly be as credible if Holmes were middle aged and Balwani were the 19 year old wonderkind and he claimed she was controlling and abusive.

Do you mean: if only the ages and sexes were reversed, but not the CEO/subordinate role?

I don't find it sufficient to let her off the hook but she's certainly allowed to plead her case. Now, if this relationship had begun when she was 28 or 29 instead of 18 or 19, I'd give it far less weight. But given her age at the time--it would be incredible if he did not have outsize influence over her, particularly in setting up a business. He's old enough to be her father. She was very young.

It is true that it is not legal to defraud rich stupid people but that does not make me feel much sympathy for them.

Well, it's not just illegal, it's immoral. Your feelings of sympathy for the victims of fraud does not make them less the victims of fraud.

Again, by my reading of the case, Holmes clearly committed fraud and clearly at some point, she was entirely responsible for her continued actions, even if at the outset, she was overly influenced (abusive or not) by her much older lover, even if she was young and naive at the outset. She knew her idea was failing. She was committing fraud when she set up the testing, presenting results from conventional tests as coming from Theranos platforms. That's fraud and should be cause for more serious criminal charges than merely financial fraud.

I'm in no way arguing that Holmes is a victim in all of this. I think she was arrogant, over-praised and ignorant and easily flattered at the outset. I doubt she had the kinds of checks and balances in her life that most people have. That does not make her innocent.

I agree that no matter what happened at the start, even somebody as narcissistic and egotistic as Holmes must have realised that her idea was impossible after a while.

I certainly have less sympathy for Holmes than her rich investors. Her rich investors just wanted money. Holmes wanted money enough to endanger people's health.

Yes, I mean if only the ages were reversed and not the sexes. Not in terms of CEOs but we do know of older women seducing underage boys and even getting pregnant by them. MaryKay Letourneau was ultimately charged with rape --and convicted. While this whole hot for teacher thing was huge on the late night comedy circuit at the time, there were some (including me) who felt that even after her victim became an adult (and they married after she was out of prison) that she maintained far too much control over him. There have been other cases of boys being seduced/raped by female teachers or other adults. The LeTourneau case is just the most infamous one. I figured the kid never had a chance in the world. Holmes wasn't underage in that respect but only by a very little. Obviously, the money stakes were very different and in certain respects, so was the power. Letourneau's victim was significantly younger than Holmes was at the onset of their relationships and yes, that really does matter, for more reasons than the the legality of the relationships. The Holmes/Balwani relationship was legal but it was not equal, at least not in the beginning. As for her being 'his boss,' I'm pretty sure that was a deliberate choice by Balwani for her to be the face/head and for him to be the person controlling the money. And I doubt very much that this extended beyond the company. 10 years on? Probably not so much but in the beginning: Yes.

So here's a question for you: Suppose that Holmes and Balwani were both male and in a sexual/romantic relationship when Zach Holmes was 18 or 19, a kind of wonderkind and Balwani (20+ years older) 'helped' him bring his idea to investors while maintaining a romantic/sexual relationship. Do you think that Balwani might have undo influence over Zach Holmes, given the large difference in their ages and experience and Zach's relative youth?

I'm sure that Holmes (and Balwani) realized that Theranos was based on an impossibility at some point. I can imagine the pressure was enormous to try to make it possible.

I am very much more sickened by the potential threat to people's lives by the fake testing than I am at defrauding rich people who stupidly never investigated whether the promises were realistic or not. But she's not being charged with endangering people's lives. To me, that is the bigger deal. Or would be if it were ever commercially launched. Even in trials, it's horrific.