Female Privilege or Femme Fatale?

[Toni]

When I first read of her proposals, I realized immediately that this 'technology' was a fraud. And I'm not that smart.

Indeed. Holmes was selling a fraud, and she knew it.

In the beginning, I don’t think she knew it was a fraud or a con. And I think as time went on, she didn’t know how to dial things back or deal with the pressure, including pressure from the man who was sleeping with her and who may or may not have been controlling her to a great extent. Yes, legally she was an adult but her brain wasn't.

When I first read of her proposals, I realized immediately that this 'technology' was a fraud. And I'm not that smart.

Indeed. Holmes was selling a fraud, and she knew it.

I’m not entirely certain that she knew it was a fraud. She dropped out of college at 19 to pursue this start up. Her background was entirely insufficient for her to know it understand the science behind her idea. No doubt she is extremely bright but at 19, even and maybe especially very bright 19 year olds lack the maturity, in part because they lack experience but also because they lack brain maturity that allows for more sound judgement. It is very likely that Holmes was very bright, very easily flattered, naive, arrogant and totally 19. I can see how she could have become very easily caught up in this heady combination of a professor encouraging her and telling her how brilliant she was and how rich she would become. In the beginning, I don’t think she knew it was a fraud or a con. And I think as time went on, she didn’t know how to dial things back or deal with the pressure, including pressure from the man who was sleeping with her and who may or may not have been controlling her to a great extent. Yes, legally she was an adult but her brain wasn’t.

So your argument is telling us she is not mature enough to know better? A 19 year old man could be drafted and off fighting a war somewhere.

The feminists need to make up their minds how society is supposed to view women. OTOH, they will wholeheartedly agree with you Holmes is not responsible for her actions. And then when it suits their needs will then tell us out the other side of their mouth how we should not treat women like children.

Feminists want it both ways.

My position is that no one at 19 is fully adult. My position is opposed to the draft with possible exceptions during some wartime emergencies and then, it should be focused on those older than 21. It might amaze you to know that women also serve in war zones and are doing so right this minute. Maybe you've heard of Tammy Duckworth? There are many thousands ( at least 200, 000) of other female service members and vets, many serving now in combat zones.

I think you skipped the part where I said that her young age and to a certain extent, gender, helped explain but did not excuse what she did.

Just like I'm sure you've conveniently forgotten every single time I've written that a male accused/convicted of a violent crime should not be charged as an adult under the age of 18 and frankly, probably not under the age of 21, at a minimum.

Yes, I know that lots of older teens unfortunately and even more unfortunately younger teens and pre-teens are in circumstances where they are faced with no option but to act in adult capacities despite still not being fully legally adults, much less actually having an adult's mental capacity for decision making. Trust me: I know that. I was that, in fact. And so were my parents. I can write pages and pages and pages of just how badly being treated as an adult and/or being forced by circumstances to act as an adult before you are an adult negatively impacts your life forever. But that's a different topic.

I think that she was more vulnerable to magical thinking: having a really good idea and knowing it was a really good idea but not having the scientific background or expertise to implement her idea or to recognize the limitations of her idea, much less have the maturity to resist the flattery and influence her much older professor who was having sex with her exerted. I have no idea if, at age 25 or 30 or at her present age, she would have been vulnerable to such influences as her professor's flattery, her own/other's greed, arrogance or whatever. At some point, I think she got caught up in things that were beyond her understanding or ability to control and yes, I think maturity or the lack of maturity played a huge role. I also think that being female, she was more likely raised to please others, to be obedient, or at least compliant, outwardly and to trust male judgment over her own, especially the judgment of older males. I can only imagine how heady it must have been to have all of these important and wealthy people throw millions of dollars at your project! Male or female! At such a young age! And the enormous pressure to make it work, even when, obviously, it did not. Male or female, that would have been an enormous amount of pressure. Let's face it: during the Great Depression, full grown men leapt out of tall buildings under less pressure than that.

I don't think any of that excuses her, but it does explain why she did what she did.

 

[laughing dog]

Lots of well-to-do conservatives let greed overcome their good sense, and the OP wants to blame it on a woman? Wow.

Bernie Madoff did much worse and I'm pretty sure nobody here would misgender Bernie Madoff or blame it on his gender.

It's funny, everyone in the medical device business knows the Theranos story, and nobody in the industry blames it misogynistically on "it's cuz she was a woman".

That is not the argument I'm seeing here. No one is saying she is being labled unfairly as a women being a fraud.. The argument I am seeing is that she is likely to get off light because of her female privilege. No lawyer in their right mind would make such ridiculous arguments if she was a man.

Clearly you don't know defense lawyers.

If Ms. Holmes is found not guilty, you have point. If she is not, then your expectations were wrong.

 

[Toni]

Lots of well-to-do conservatives let greed overcome their good sense, and the OP wants to blame it on a woman? Wow.

Bernie Madoff did much worse and I'm pretty sure nobody here would misgender Bernie Madoff or blame it on his gender.

It's funny, everyone in the medical device business knows the Theranos story, and nobody in the industry blames it misogynistically on "it's cuz she was a woman".

That is not the argument I'm seeing here. No one is saying she is being labled unfairly as a women being a fraud.. The argument I am seeing is that she is likely to get off light because of her female privilege. No lawyer in their right mind would make such ridiculous arguments if she was a man.

See: Martha Stewart.

 

[Metaphor]

I’m not entirely certain that she knew it was a fraud.

And yet you described yourself as 'not particularly smart' and immediately saw the fraud.

Whether Holmes knew it was a fraud (which I believe) or was recklessly indifferent to it being a fraud (something that I believe is possible given her Steve Jobs-level ego), her moral culpability is the same.

 

[Metaphor]

Lots of well-to-do conservatives let greed overcome their good sense, and the OP wants to blame it on a woman? Wow.

Bernie Madoff did much worse and I'm pretty sure nobody here would misgender Bernie Madoff or blame it on his gender.

It's funny, everyone in the medical device business knows the Theranos story, and nobody in the industry blames it misogynistically on "it's cuz she was a woman".

That is not the argument I'm seeing here. No one is saying she is being labled unfairly as a women being a fraud.. The argument I am seeing is that she is likely to get off light because of her female privilege. No lawyer in their right mind would make such ridiculous arguments if she was a man.

Clearly you don't know defense lawyers.

If Ms. Holmes is found not guilty, you have point. If she is not, then your expectations were wrong.

Non. There is more than one way to 'get off light'. There is more than one way for female privilege to manifest even if the binary outcome is still 'guilty'.

 

[Toni]

I’m not entirely certain that she knew it was a fraud.

And yet you described yourself as 'not particularly smart' and immediately saw the fraud.

Whether Holmes knew it was a fraud (which I believe) or was recklessly indifferent to it being a fraud (something that I believe is possible given her Steve Jobs-level ego), her moral culpability is the same.

I have no ego involved. And I do have a background in the type of testing that Ms. Holmes wanted to be able to provide in minuscule samples, for tests which results would have been unwise to offer at…pharmacies, without proper medical guidance. Ms. Holmes was a 19 year old college drop out who was or soon was sleeping with a much older professor who definitely helped feed whatever delusions of grandeur and genius she may have been suffering under.

I have some sympathy for her. I can understand how she got at least partway to the situation she was in. But she’s not innocent of wrong doing, even if she was too heavily influenced by people who darn well should have known better.

Frankly I have zero sympathy for the mega millionaire investors who really really really could have afforded more caution.

 

[Jarhyn]

Lots of well-to-do conservatives let greed overcome their good sense, and the OP wants to blame it on a woman? Wow.

Bernie Madoff did much worse and I'm pretty sure nobody here would misgender Bernie Madoff or blame it on his gender.

It's funny, everyone in the medical device business knows the Theranos story, and nobody in the industry blames it misogynistically on "it's cuz she was a woman".

That is not the argument I'm seeing here. No one is saying she is being labled unfairly as a women being a fraud.. The argument I am seeing is that she is likely to get off light because of her female privilege. No lawyer in their right mind would make such ridiculous arguments if she was a man.

Clearly you don't know defense lawyers.

If Ms. Holmes is found not guilty, you have point. If she is not, then your expectations were wrong.

Non. There is more than one way to 'get off light'. There is more than one way for female privilege to manifest even if the binary outcome is still 'guilty'.

Lots of well-to-do conservatives let greed overcome their good sense, and the OP wants to blame it on a woman? Wow.

Bernie Madoff did much worse and I'm pretty sure nobody here would misgender Bernie Madoff or blame it on his gender.

It's funny, everyone in the medical device business knows the Theranos story, and nobody in the industry blames it misogynistically on "it's cuz she was a woman".

That is not the argument I'm seeing here. No one is saying she is being labled unfairly as a women being a fraud.. The argument I am seeing is that she is likely to get off light because of her female privilege. No lawyer in their right mind would make such ridiculous arguments if she was a man.

You must be completely spacing out about that one time a pedophile who abused his own daughter was given no sentence at all because "he would not do well in prison."

Bad arguments are advanced for all manner of persons of privilege.

You could have at least bothered to read the reply which already answered it...

 

[Toni]

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.

Women are more likely to be judged more harshly with regards to their looks compared with men. They should be attractive, well dressed and well groomed but if they are too sexually attractive, this undermines their image as competent, intelligent much less genius. Her manner of dress and grooming choices ( whose ever those choices were)

Good lord: shouldn't your assumption be that it was Holmes's choice to dress like Steve Jobs? I go around with the default assumption that women dress themselves in the morning. Why don't you?

The real problem is that investors did not vet the science

The real problem is that Holmes is a criminal conwoman, who had the charisma and connections to deceive large numbers of well-heeled people, and an ego that matched the size of her intended bank balance.

I'm not entirely sure that Holmes realized it was a con, at least at the beginning. At 19, especially if you are a certain kind of bright person who has never really faced anything but praise and reassurance of your brilliance, well, there's a lot of magical thinking. Happens to all of us to a certain extent. Very, very few of us are ever in a position where it involves millions of dollars or even sleeping with a professor.

I'm certain that at some point, she realized she/they had vastly overpromised and that she was leagues over her head with respect to the science and technology end of things and I think that she sincerely attempted to catch up but absolutely lacked even enough background to realize how to accomplish what she set out to do. No doubt she was, in part, inspired by Patrick O. Brown, a professor at Stanford, who invented microarray testing for (some) genetic assays. The idea of inventing microarrays for a variety of testing was exceedingly hot in the 90's and early 2000's. Holmes completely lacked the scientific background and basic understanding of medical testing. It would be easy to blame her childhood as well as her professor and the greedy investors who just looked at the daughter of a former Enron executive and congressional aide, with the backing of a professor and, well, when some people see $ all ethics go out the window.

I do not think this makes her not culpable. She absolutely is. But she did not get there all by herself. Legally, her parents cannot be charged but her former lover who certainly helped form and promote the scheme should be.

 

[laughing dog]

Lots of well-to-do conservatives let greed overcome their good sense, and the OP wants to blame it on a woman? Wow.

Bernie Madoff did much worse and I'm pretty sure nobody here would misgender Bernie Madoff or blame it on his gender.

It's funny, everyone in the medical device business knows the Theranos story, and nobody in the industry blames it misogynistically on "it's cuz she was a woman".

That is not the argument I'm seeing here. No one is saying she is being labled unfairly as a women being a fraud.. The argument I am seeing is that she is likely to get off light because of her female privilege. No lawyer in their right mind would make such ridiculous arguments if she was a man.

Clearly you don't know defense lawyers.

If Ms. Holmes is found not guilty, you have point. If she is not, then your expectations were wrong.

Non. There is more than one way to 'get off light'. There is more than one way for female privilege to manifest even if the binary outcome is still 'guilty'.

Rvonse's point was this defense is an example female privilege AND it will get her acquitted. Clearly, if she is found guilty , his expectation is proven wrong because she is not acquitted. That was my point.

I literally have no idea why anyone would find your response relevant to my point.

 

[Metaphor]

Rvonse's point was this defense is an example female privilege AND it will get her acquitted.

No it's not? Rvonse did not say she would get acquitted. In the exchange I quoted, Rvonse said:

The argument I am seeing is that she is likely to get off light because of her female privilege.

I don't see where RVonse said 'acquitted'. 'Getting off light' could maybe mean 'acquitted' (though I would say that is 'getting off scot-free', not 'light'), but to me it means getting off light. That she is treated with more sympathy, that her jury deliberations (even for an eventual 'guilty') will take longer, that her sentence will be lighter than it otherwise would have been if she were a man.

I literally have no idea why anyone would find your response relevant to my point.

You can't ever concede that you were mistaken, can you? And you always have to say something nasty, even when you are wrong.

 

[laughing dog]

Rvonse's point was this defense is an example female privilege AND it will get her acquitted.

No it's not? Rvonse did not say she would get acquitted. In the exchange I quoted, Rvonse said:

The argument I am seeing is that she is likely to get off light because of her female privilege.

I don't see where RVonse said 'acquitted'. 'Getting off light' could maybe mean 'acquitted' (though I would say that is 'getting off scot-free', not 'light'), but to me it means getting off light. That she is treated with more sympathy, that her jury deliberations (even for an eventual 'guilty') will take longer, that her sentence will be lighter than it otherwise would have been if she were a man.

A longer deliberation by a jury is not "getting off light". Either the jury acquits on a charge or it does not. So your argument in that respect is simply wrong.

You have a point about a lighter sentence. That will be an empirical question.

I literally have no idea why anyone would find your response relevant to my point.

You can't ever concede that you were mistaken, can you? And you always have to say something nasty, even when you are wrong.

That one broke every irony meter that has been made or will ever be made.

 

[Gospel]

Wow, could this make the Guinness Book of World Records, as the world's most expensive honeypot?

 

[Metaphor]

I literally have no idea why anyone would find your response relevant to my point.

Rvonse's point was this defense is an example female privilege AND it will get her acquitted.

No it's not? Rvonse did not say she would get acquitted. In the exchange I quoted, Rvonse said:

The argument I am seeing is that she is likely to get off light because of her female privilege.

I don't see where RVonse said 'acquitted'. 'Getting off light' could maybe mean 'acquitted' (though I would say that is 'getting off scot-free', not 'light'), but to me it means getting off light. That she is treated with more sympathy, that her jury deliberations (even for an eventual 'guilty') will take longer, that her sentence will be lighter than it otherwise would have been if she were a man.

A longer deliberation by a jury is not "getting off light". Either the jury acquits on a charge or it does not. So your argument in that respect is simply wrong.

A longer deliberation by a jury because Holmes is a woman would be a sign of female privilege, as would acquittal on some or all charges where a man would not be acquitted, as would a shorter sentence, as would getting a non-prison sentence, as would any of the dozen ways Holmes might be treated more favourably because she is a woman. Even entertaining the notion that Balwani abused her emotionally and sexually for a decade is a claim that wouldn't get out of the starting gate if a male CEO claimed it about his female partner who was COO of the same company.

 

[laughing dog]

I literally have no idea why anyone would find your response relevant to my point.

Rvonse's point was this defense is an example female privilege AND it will get her acquitted.

No it's not? Rvonse did not say she would get acquitted. In the exchange I quoted, Rvonse said:

The argument I am seeing is that she is likely to get off light because of her female privilege.

I don't see where RVonse said 'acquitted'. 'Getting off light' could maybe mean 'acquitted' (though I would say that is 'getting off scot-free', not 'light'), but to me it means getting off light. That she is treated with more sympathy, that her jury deliberations (even for an eventual 'guilty') will take longer, that her sentence will be lighter than it otherwise would have been if she were a man.

A longer deliberation by a jury is not "getting off light". Either the jury acquits on a charge or it does not. So your argument in that respect is simply wrong.

A longer deliberation by a jury because Holmes is a woman would be a sign of female privilege, as would acquittal on some or all charges where a man would not be acquitted, as would a shorter sentence, as would getting a non-prison sentence, as would any of the dozen ways Holmes might be treated more favourably because she is a woman. Even entertaining the notion that Balwani abused her emotionally and sexually for a decade is a claim that wouldn't get out of the starting gate if a male CEO claimed it about his female partner who was COO of the same company.

First, a longer deliberation is not a benefit to the defendant unless it results in acquittal.

Second, a longer deliberation is not a sign of any particular influence on a jury. After a verdict come in, there may be some indication of what the jury was deliberating, but until then, it is not a sign of anything,

Third, you have no evidence that if the sexes were reversed that the same claim by a male would not get out of the starting the gate.

 

[Metaphor]

I literally have no idea why anyone would find your response relevant to my point.

Rvonse's point was this defense is an example female privilege AND it will get her acquitted.

No it's not? Rvonse did not say she would get acquitted. In the exchange I quoted, Rvonse said:

The argument I am seeing is that she is likely to get off light because of her female privilege.

I don't see where RVonse said 'acquitted'. 'Getting off light' could maybe mean 'acquitted' (though I would say that is 'getting off scot-free', not 'light'), but to me it means getting off light. That she is treated with more sympathy, that her jury deliberations (even for an eventual 'guilty') will take longer, that her sentence will be lighter than it otherwise would have been if she were a man.

A longer deliberation by a jury is not "getting off light". Either the jury acquits on a charge or it does not. So your argument in that respect is simply wrong.

A longer deliberation by a jury because Holmes is a woman would be a sign of female privilege, as would acquittal on some or all charges where a man would not be acquitted, as would a shorter sentence, as would getting a non-prison sentence, as would any of the dozen ways Holmes might be treated more favourably because she is a woman. Even entertaining the notion that Balwani abused her emotionally and sexually for a decade is a claim that wouldn't get out of the starting gate if a male CEO claimed it about his female partner who was COO of the same company.

First, a longer deliberation is not a benefit to the defendant unless it results in acquittal.

I didn't say it resulted in a benefit, I said it was a sign of female privilege.

Second, a longer deliberation is not a sign of any particular influence on a jury. After a verdict come in, there may be some indication of what the jury was deliberating, but until then, it is not a sign of anything,

I'm not saying there is any way it could be proved. I am saying that female privilege is consistent with a jury taking longer to deliberate, even when they eventually reach a guilty verdict. It means they were more reluctant to find guilt. We don't really have access to jury deliberation in the counterfactual where Holmes was a man.

Third, you have no evidence that if the sexes were reversed that the same claim by a male would not get out of the starting the gate.

I have a reason to make such a claim: because it accords with reality. But, should something remotely similar arise again with the sexes reversed--a male CEO under fraud investigation who was in a decade-long relationship with a female C-suite executive, I'll pay close attention to see if claims of abuse arise.

 

[laughing dog]

I literally have no idea why anyone would find your response relevant to my point.

Rvonse's point was this defense is an example female privilege AND it will get her acquitted.

No it's not? Rvonse did not say she would get acquitted. In the exchange I quoted, Rvonse said:

The argument I am seeing is that she is likely to get off light because of her female privilege.

I don't see where RVonse said 'acquitted'. 'Getting off light' could maybe mean 'acquitted' (though I would say that is 'getting off scot-free', not 'light'), but to me it means getting off light. That she is treated with more sympathy, that her jury deliberations (even for an eventual 'guilty') will take longer, that her sentence will be lighter than it otherwise would have been if she were a man.

A longer deliberation by a jury is not "getting off light". Either the jury acquits on a charge or it does not. So your argument in that respect is simply wrong.

A longer deliberation by a jury because Holmes is a woman would be a sign of female privilege, as would acquittal on some or all charges where a man would not be acquitted, as would a shorter sentence, as would getting a non-prison sentence, as would any of the dozen ways Holmes might be treated more favourably because she is a woman. Even entertaining the notion that Balwani abused her emotionally and sexually for a decade is a claim that wouldn't get out of the starting gate if a male CEO claimed it about his female partner who was COO of the same company.

First, a longer deliberation is not a benefit to the defendant unless it results in acquittal.

I didn't say it resulted in a benefit, I said it was a sign of female privilege.

Second, a longer deliberation is not a sign of any particular influence on a jury. After a verdict come in, there may be some indication of what the jury was deliberating, but until then, it is not a sign of anything,

I'm not saying there is any way it could be proved. I am saying that female privilege is consistent with a jury taking longer to deliberate, even when they eventually reach a guilty verdict. It means they were more reluctant to find guilt. We don't really have access to jury deliberation in the counterfactual where Holmes was a man.

In other words, you have nothing to support your argument but your bias.

Third, you have no evidence that if the sexes were reversed that the same claim by a male would not get out of the starting the gate.

I have a reason to make such a claim: because it accords with reality. But, should something remotely similar arise again with the sexes reversed--a male CEO under fraud investigation who was in a decade-long relationship with a female C-suite executive, I'll pay close attention to see if claims of abuse arise.

If your claims accords with reality, you'd have evidence to support it. You don't. Your conjectures about what accords with reality are relevant only to your state of mind, not to reality.

Personally, I will wait for the verdict and any information about jury deliberations before drawing a conclusion.

 

[Toni]

I literally have no idea why anyone would find your response relevant to my point.

Rvonse's point was this defense is an example female privilege AND it will get her acquitted.

No it's not? Rvonse did not say she would get acquitted. In the exchange I quoted, Rvonse said:

The argument I am seeing is that she is likely to get off light because of her female privilege.

I don't see where RVonse said 'acquitted'. 'Getting off light' could maybe mean 'acquitted' (though I would say that is 'getting off scot-free', not 'light'), but to me it means getting off light. That she is treated with more sympathy, that her jury deliberations (even for an eventual 'guilty') will take longer, that her sentence will be lighter than it otherwise would have been if she were a man.

A longer deliberation by a jury is not "getting off light". Either the jury acquits on a charge or it does not. So your argument in that respect is simply wrong.

A longer deliberation by a jury because Holmes is a woman would be a sign of female privilege, as would acquittal on some or all charges where a man would not be acquitted, as would a shorter sentence, as would getting a non-prison sentence, as would any of the dozen ways Holmes might be treated more favourably because she is a woman. Even entertaining the notion that Balwani abused her emotionally and sexually for a decade is a claim that wouldn't get out of the starting gate if a male CEO claimed it about his female partner who was COO of the same company.

First, a longer deliberation is not a benefit to the defendant unless it results in acquittal.

I didn't say it resulted in a benefit, I said it was a sign of female privilege.

Second, a longer deliberation is not a sign of any particular influence on a jury. After a verdict come in, there may be some indication of what the jury was deliberating, but until then, it is not a sign of anything,

I'm not saying there is any way it could be proved. I am saying that female privilege is consistent with a jury taking longer to deliberate, even when they eventually reach a guilty verdict. It means they were more reluctant to find guilt. We don't really have access to jury deliberation in the counterfactual where Holmes was a man.

Third, you have no evidence that if the sexes were reversed that the same claim by a male would not get out of the starting the gate.

I have a reason to make such a claim: because it accords with reality. But, should something remotely similar arise again with the sexes reversed--a male CEO under fraud investigation who was in a decade-long relationship with a female C-suite executive, I'll pay close attention to see if claims of abuse arise.

If your claims accord with reality, you should be able to cite cases.

I don’t know how things work in Australia, but in the US, lawyers often use victim or defendant background and history to aid in their case. I’m pretty certain that there have been cases of lawsuits alleging that a man was under undue influence of a woman who basically was using all of her feminine wiles and sex to entrap the poor man into <whatever> for her financial benefit. I’m sure that has come into play when challenging the wills of recently deceased old men with large estates and a second or third wife younger than his adult children.

 

[Metaphor]

In other words, you have nothing to support your argument but your bias.

No. That is a dishonest twisting of what I said.

If your claims accords with reality, you'd have evidence to support it.

My claim was that the attempt to paint Holmes as a long-time victim of coercive control from a male partner would not make it out of the starting gate if the sexes were reversed. The evidence is that no such case exists.

Evidence against my claim would be a similar case where a male CEO claimed that he was under the coercive control of a female C-suite executive, and she was to blame for his fraud. I have never seen such a case and if there were one, I would be truly interested in its outcome.

You don't. Your conjectures about what accords with reality are relevant only to your state of mind, not to reality.

Personally, I will wait for the verdict and any information about jury deliberations before drawing a conclusion.

I don't have to wait for a verdict to know that no male CEO would attempt to claim his fraud was the result of the coercive control of a female C-suite executive who he'd been in a relationship with for ten years.

But you do you, ld.

 

[Metaphor]

If your claims accord with reality, you should be able to cite cases.

My claim is that there are no such cases. If there were a case where a male CEO tried to get out of a fraud charge by claiming he was under the coercive control of a female C-suite executive who he had been in a relationship with for ten years, that would be evidence against my claim.

I don’t know how things work in Australia, but in the US, lawyers often use victim or defendant background and history to aid in their case. I’m pretty certain that there have been cases of lawsuits alleging that a man was under undue influence of a woman who basically was using all of her feminine wiles and sex to entrap the poor man into <whatever> for her financial benefit. I’m sure that has come into play when challenging the wills of recently deceased old men with large estates and a second or third wife younger than his adult children.

If your claims accord with reality, you should be able to cite cases.

But to be less glib than you were to me, even if there were such cases, that does not speak to my point. It is female privilege to be able to even make the claim that, as a CEO, you were still under the coercive control of a lower-ranking C-suite executive with whom you were in a sexual relationship for ten years. Note I'm not even speaking to the truth of the claim.

If the sexes in the Holmes case were reversed, it is cloud cuckoo land absurd to think Balwani, as CEO, would claim he was under the coercive control of a lower-ranking C-suite executive with whom he was in a sexual relationship. It is cloud cuckoo land absurd to think he'd try it, even if it had actually been the case that he was under coercive control.

 

[Toni]

Of course it would! Don’t you know how many rich old men are led around by their…nose by gold diggers?