Female Privilege or Femme Fatale?

[dismal]

So we're going to dismiss the misogyny that prompted the OP?

Some of us aren't as big on attacking posters personally as you are. We actually prefer to discuss the topic.

But you have at it if you must.

 

[barbos]

Was it established that this was a scam from the get-go?
And no, gender has nothing to do with anything here. Her investors are simply idiots. They all failed to understand the difference between startup which is based on business idea and startup which is based on particular advancement/invention in science/technology.

I wonder what Holmes is going to do in case she does not go to prison. She has no education and no reputation.

It doesn't sound like it was a fraud from the beginning. It sounds like she was a better promoter/marketer than her company could back up. She could sell a utopian vision, but actually achieving utopia was hard. They could not live up to the promises they were making to investors and customers, and rather than own up to it they fudged things.

Furthermore, I don't think she ever intended to defraud people. Rather, she was driven by a desire to emulate her idol, Silicon Valley demi-god Steve Jobs. And while the Jobs approach can work in the world of consumer electronics, it's not really transferable to the world of biomedical devices.

That's my impression too. She bullshitted herself first. I am not an expert but I read somewhere that what she wanted to do is simply impossible at current level of technology. Blood tests require a lot of blood and money. So the whole Idea was just a dream and nothing else.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

So we're going to dismiss the misogyny that prompted the OP?

Some of us aren't as big on attacking posters personally as you are.

Interesting—and revealing—that you interpreted it that way.

We actually prefer to discuss the topic.

Misogyny is most certainly an integral part of the topic.

 

[dismal]

Misogyny is most certainly an integral part of the topic.

In what way?

 

[Copernicus]

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

She committed fraud. Should she not be blamed just because she is a woman?
Also, this is Silicon Valley. Those well-to-do investors are by and large going to be left-of-center Democrats.

Wrong on both points, Derec. First, nobody here is claiming that she should not be blamed. They are pointing out that this story has nothing to do with "female privilege". If you think it does, then explain why you think that. Secondly, almost all of the investors were well-known right wing Republicans. Apparently, they all reinforced each other's bad judgment in sinking all that money into an unproven technology and inexperienced management team. Not the first time that such people have made serious errors in judgment.

 

[dismal]

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

She committed fraud. Should she not be blamed just because she is a woman?
Also, this is Silicon Valley. Those well-to-do investors are by and large going to be left-of-center Democrats.

Wrong on both points, Derec. First, nobody here is claiming that she should not be blamed. They are pointing out that this story has nothing to do with "female privilege". If you think it does, then explain why you think that. Secondly, almost all of the investors were well-known right wing Republicans. Apparently, they all reinforced each other's bad judgment in sinking all that money into an unproven technology and inexperienced management team. Not the first time that such people have made serious errors in judgment.

"Board members" and "advisors" are not to be confused with "investors". Often these people are brought in solely to lend a certain air of legitimacy to a company. There's a good chance they are being compensated in some way for lending their names to the venture. Again, this is another one of the earmarks of her being very capable of selling her vision.

As an aside, when companies come to see my firm and they have high profile advisors I don't always consider it a plus. Some people are far better at raising money than spending it. We like to find the people who are good at spending it. I suppose in the biotech field it may be different as there may be a perception these people can help open some doors that need to be opened.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The investors in Theranos were connected to right-wing because Kissinger and other political figures helped to prop up the value through various statements. The investors were spread across the country. The reason that investors were so excited was because Theranos claimed to be a game changer with the ability to do blood draws from a finger, much like some sugar level tests, rather than from typical phlebotomist veinous draws, like through arm. Fingers don't have large vessels that are more centrally located and so the blood there can be non-representative of average blood in the body. In any case, they claimed they could do it and had patented IP around the alleged technology. Or maybe it was just trade secrets around a methodology. In any case... The potential was a game changer since consumers could theoretically test themselves using this new tech. Theoretically...in the future of the company... It turns out that the tech actually produces very variable results because of the non-representative nature of the blood, but that's that. Investors like a disruptive tech that claims to democratize a market (retail healthcare) and so when Theranos got a lot of CLIA approval for LDTs with their tech and started collaborating with pharmacies to have test kits available, this showed exponential potential of market growth. Most of the claims were hype from Theranos. Finger pricks were much less frequent than claimed and they actually did traditional draws way more often, likewise the finger pricks had that more variability. There wasn't actually anything disruptive but the hype and a valuation of $9 billion. The stories about Theranos are HUGE and have been beat to death by media. To claim that there has been no coverage is a joke by Trausti. He makes joke threads like this all the time and the Right falls for it continuing on. It's just like his trick socialism thread and that one is many pages while he's laughing off that people are continuing to support his ridiculous op.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Misogyny is most certainly an integral part of the topic.

In what way?

In every way. The title of the thread is “Female Privilege or Femme Fatale?” neither of which exist, except in the mind of a misogynist.

The central questions asked: “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?” All centered around and stemming from a position of misogyny.

Misogyny: dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women. This does not necessarily mean that Trausti is a misogynist, but misogyny is most certainly an integral part of the topic.

 

[Copernicus]

Wrong on both points, Derec. First, nobody here is claiming that she should not be blamed. They are pointing out that this story has nothing to do with "female privilege". If you think it does, then explain why you think that. Secondly, almost all of the investors were well-known right wing Republicans. Apparently, they all reinforced each other's bad judgment in sinking all that money into an unproven technology and inexperienced management team. Not the first time that such people have made serious errors in judgment.

"Board members" and "advisors" are not to be confused with "investors". Often these people are brought in solely to lend a certain air of legitimacy to a company. There's a good chance they are being compensated in some way for lending their names to the venture. Again, this is another one of the earmarks of her being very capable of selling her vision.

As an aside, when companies come to see my firm and they have high profile advisors I don't always consider it a plus. Some people are far better at raising money than spending it. We like to find the people who are good at spending it. I suppose in the biotech field it may be different as there may be a perception these people can help open some doors that need to be opened.

What I saw in the article was a list of two groups: "investors" and "members of the board". Both were packed with big name Republicans. Doubtless there were investors that may not have been Republicans and may not have been mentioned because they weren't considered newsworthy of mention. You are right, of course, that she was leveraging those names to raise money. You might not have invested, but some of these folks aren't necessarily savvy investors like yourself. They are impressed by what their cronies and friends are impressed by.

Most startups of this nature fail. That's why venture capitalists usually take huge cuts off the top of any such company's future profits that they decide to fund. This was really a business that needed a venture capitalist company to guide its development and growth.

 

[dismal]

Misogyny is most certainly an integral part of the topic.

In what way?

In every way. The title of the thread is “Female Privilege or Femme Fatale?” neither of which exist, except in the mind of a misogynist.

The central questions asked: “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?” All centered around and stemming from a position of misogyny.

Misogyny: dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women. This does not necessarily mean that Trausti is a misogynist, but misogyny is most certainly is part and parcel to the OP.

Ok, so you are attacking the poster.

I'm just curious how you know for a fact none of this has anything to do with the fact she is a woman. This story seems to be about a woman who induced some people to believe a vision and ignore all the facts that might have prevented them from doing so.

Are you sure it's not possible that older male board members and wealthy family members were not influenced in part because she was an attractive young female?

It seems like that's been known to happen. I seem to recall Anna Nicole Smith marrying a 90 year old billionaire.

 

[dismal]

Wrong on both points, Derec. First, nobody here is claiming that she should not be blamed. They are pointing out that this story has nothing to do with "female privilege". If you think it does, then explain why you think that. Secondly, almost all of the investors were well-known right wing Republicans. Apparently, they all reinforced each other's bad judgment in sinking all that money into an unproven technology and inexperienced management team. Not the first time that such people have made serious errors in judgment.

"Board members" and "advisors" are not to be confused with "investors". Often these people are brought in solely to lend a certain air of legitimacy to a company. There's a good chance they are being compensated in some way for lending their names to the venture. Again, this is another one of the earmarks of her being very capable of selling her vision.

As an aside, when companies come to see my firm and they have high profile advisors I don't always consider it a plus. Some people are far better at raising money than spending it. We like to find the people who are good at spending it. I suppose in the biotech field it may be different as there may be a perception these people can help open some doors that need to be opened.

What I saw in the article was a list of two groups: "investors" and "members of the board". Both were packed with big name Republicans. Doubtless there were investors that may not have been Republicans and may not have been mentioned because they weren't considered newsworthy of mention. You are right, of course, that she was leveraging those names to raise money. You might not have invested, but some of these folks aren't necessarily savvy investors like yourself. They are impressed by what their cronies and friends are impressed by.

My sense is the early stage investors were more traditional venture capital types and the later stage investors were wealthy family types. The wealthy family types don't seem to be very intelligent investors. Or at least not very good with due diligence. Some of the wealthy families may be considered "Republican" I suppose. Like the Murdoch and the DeVos family. This seems mostly by association though. I'm not sure why the others would be considered Republican. Frankly, I'm not sure why it matters.

Interesting article here:

Maris tells Business Insider that his firm decided to pass on investing in Theranos in 2013 — even though it invests in many health and life-sciences companies, like 23andMe and Flatiron Health — because it had questions about the company's technology.

"We looked at it a couple times, but there was so much hand-waving — like, Look over here!— that we couldn't figure it out," Maris tells Business Insider. "So, we just had someone from our life-science investment team go into Walgreens and take the test. And it wasn't that difficult for anyone to determine that things may not be what they seem here."

That employee found that when he went to get a test done, Theranos wanted more than just a drop of blood in one of its "nanotainers." He denied a full venous blood draw, and ended up getting called back a week later because they wanted him to give more blood.

http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-maris-explains-why-gv-didnt-invest-in-theranos-2015-10

"Never invest in a company that isn't transparent with you about what it does" seems like a solid rule for an institutional investor.

 

[Copernicus]

In every way. The title of the thread is “Female Privilege or Femme Fatale?” neither of which exist, except in the mind of a misogynist.

The central questions asked: “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?” All centered around and stemming from a position of misogyny.

Misogyny: dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women. This does not necessarily mean that Trausti is a misogynist, but misogyny is most certainly is part and parcel to the OP.

Ok, so you are attacking the poster.

I'm just curious how you know for a fact none of this has anything to do with the fact she is a woman. This story seems to be about a woman who induced some people to believe a vision and ignore all the facts that might have prevented them from doing so.

Are you sure it's not possible that older male board members and wealthy family members were not influenced in part because she was an attractive young female?

It seems like that's been known to happen. I seem to recall Anna Nicole Smith marrying a 90 year old billionaire.

Koy was not directly attacking the poster, but he was calling the content of the OP and the title misogyny. It is up to Trausti to defend his claim here, because it does appear to be based on something of a hostile attitude towards women rather than a genuine case of female privilege. Betsy Devos was a big investor in this company, but maybe she is attracted to women. Who knows? It is possible that this woman's physical appearance was a factor that helped attract investors. However, that is hardly what "female privilege" is about. It is about women allegedly taking advantage of their social status to gain some kind of unfair advantage. Just being attractive is not the kind of social status we normally associate with that term.

 

[Copernicus]

What I saw in the article was a list of two groups: "investors" and "members of the board". Both were packed with big name Republicans. Doubtless there were investors that may not have been Republicans and may not have been mentioned because they weren't considered newsworthy of mention. You are right, of course, that she was leveraging those names to raise money. You might not have invested, but some of these folks aren't necessarily savvy investors like yourself. They are impressed by what their cronies and friends are impressed by.

My sense is the early stage investors were more traditional venture capital types and the later stage investors were wealthy family types. The wealthy family types don't seem to be very intelligent investors. Or at least not very good with due diligence. Some of the wealthy families may be considered "Republican" I suppose. Like the Murdoch and the DeVos family. This seems mostly by association though. I'm not sure why the others would be considered Republican. Frankly, I'm not sure why it matters...

Why it matters is that Derec jumped to the conclusion that they were liberal Democrats because this all took place in California. I found that ironic, since just about every person mentioned as an investor of board member was a prominent Republican. This looks very much like a case of wealthy people who knew each other all helping to hype this super investment opportunity that they had come across. With all those big names involved, it just had to be a sure thing.

 

[dismal]

In every way. The title of the thread is “Female Privilege or Femme Fatale?” neither of which exist, except in the mind of a misogynist.

The central questions asked: “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?” All centered around and stemming from a position of misogyny.

Misogyny: dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women. This does not necessarily mean that Trausti is a misogynist, but misogyny is most certainly is part and parcel to the OP.

Ok, so you are attacking the poster.

I'm just curious how you know for a fact none of this has anything to do with the fact she is a woman. This story seems to be about a woman who induced some people to believe a vision and ignore all the facts that might have prevented them from doing so.

Are you sure it's not possible that older male board members and wealthy family members were not influenced in part because she was an attractive young female?

It seems like that's been known to happen. I seem to recall Anna Nicole Smith marrying a 90 year old billionaire.

Koy was not directly attacking the poster, but he was calling the content of the OP and the title misogyny. It is up to Trausti to defend his claim here, because it does appear to be based on something of a hostile attitude towards women rather than a genuine case of female privilege. Betsy Devos was a big investor in this company, but maybe she is attracted to women. Who knows? It is possible that this woman's physical appearance was a factor that helped attract investors. However, that is hardly what "female privilege" is about. It is about women allegedly taking advantage of their social status to gain some kind of unfair advantage. Just being attractive is not the kind of social status we normally associate with that term.

One point: No, Betsy Devos was not an investor. The Devos family was an investor. Betsy Devos is the daughter-in-law of biillionaire Amway founder Richard Devos. I don't know that Betsy Devos had anything to do with it. She may or may not have been involved personally at all.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

In every way. The title of the thread is “Female Privilege or Femme Fatale?” neither of which exist, except in the mind of a misogynist.

The central questions asked: “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?” All centered around and stemming from a position of misogyny.

Misogyny: dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women. This does not necessarily mean that Trausti is a misogynist, but misogyny is most certainly is part and parcel to the OP.

Ok, so you are attacking the poster.

I very clearly was not.

I'm just curious how you know for a fact none of this has anything to do with the fact she is a woman.

Thank for you proving my point.

This story seems

Misogyny: dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.

Intregral: of, relating to, or belonging as a part of the whole; constituent or component; consisting or composed of parts that together constitute a whole.

Are you sure it's not possible that older male board members and wealthy family members were not influenced in part because she was an attractive young female?

Misogyny: dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.

Intregral: of, relating to, or belonging as a part of the whole; constituent or component; consisting or composed of parts that together constitute a whole.

 

[dismal]

Thank for you proving my point.

You keep saying this as if a) you have a point and b) you have proven something.

I think this is mostly going in some drama inside your head as I have detected neither.

 

[laughing dog]

So we're going to dismiss the misogyny that prompted the OP?

Some of us aren't as big on attacking posters personally as you are.

That illogical straw man broke the irony meter.

 

[Toni]

Thank for you proving my point.

You keep saying this as if a) you have a point and b) you have proven something.

I think this is mostly going in some drama inside your head as I have detected neither.

So, you didn't read the thread title? Or the OP?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Thank for you proving my point.

You keep saying this

I said it once.

as if a) you have a point

I do.

and b) you have proven something.

You proved it. Hence my thanking you for proving my point.

I think this is mostly going in some drama inside your head

Attacking the poster.

as I have detected neither.

What you have or have not “detected” is utterly irrelevant. The fact that misogyny is an integral part of this topic is clearly established and all you have done is underscore that fact.

 

[dismal]

Thank for you proving my point.

You keep saying this as if a) you have a point and b) you have proven something.

I think this is mostly going in some drama inside your head as I have detected neither.

So, you didn't read the thread title? Or the OP?

Yeah, sure. Is there some reason why people can't say what they want to say here?

What is misogynistic in the OP?

Would it be "misogynistic" to imply the reason Anna Nicole Smith was able to marry a 90 year old billionaire was because she was a beautiful woman and he was bedazzled? That seems more like reason to me.