Female Privilege or Femme Fatale?

[dismal]

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.

Ok, so how many rounds do we do this?

You: it's mysogyny
Me: what?
You: the OP
Me: in what way
You because it is
Me: how
You: because it is
Me: what is?
You: the OP?
Me: how?
You: it's mysogyny
me: why?
You: did you read it?
Me: yes

How many more times do you do this before the great soldiers of progressivism can declare another victory? Or is just flinging the accusation the victory?

 

[Copernicus]

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.

The article cited in the OP contained a list of investors. On that list was "...President Trump’s secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, and her family..." Apparently, both she personally and her family were investors.

 

[Bronzeage]

I said it once.



I do.



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.

Ok, so how many rounds do we do this?

You: it's mysogyny
Me: what?
You: the OP
Me: in what way
You because it is
Me: how
You: because it is
Me: what is?
You: the OP?
Me: how?
You: it's mysogyny
me: why?
You: did you read it?
Me: yes

How many more times do you do this before the great soldiers of progressivism can declare another victory? Or is just flinging the accusation the victory?

Imagine that you hear the term "misogamy" repeatedly, in connection with statements you make. Would this lead you to conclude you are talking to people who do not know what misogamy means?

 

[Copernicus]

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?

That is clear to everyone but you and the (silent) Trausti, who has not tried to explain why he called this a case of "female privilege". There is nothing about this story that suggests that Elizabeth Holmes's gender had anything to do with this scandal. Trausti appears to have seen this as a case of a woman somehow using her "feminine privilege" to hoodwink a bunch of naive investors. Men do that all the time, but, when a woman does it, that's really beyond the pale. The best you seem to be able to come up with is that she beguiled the investors with her female attractiveness.

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.

There are clearly cases of women who marry for power and money. Even men do it, when the opportunity arises. What does that have to do with this story? Again, you seem to think that just being a woman and being involved in some scandalous behavior or nefarious activity can just be branded "female privilege".

 

[dismal]

I said it once.



I do.



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



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.

Ok, so how many rounds do we do this?

You: it's mysogyny
Me: what?
You: the OP
Me: in what way
You because it is
Me: how
You: because it is
Me: what is?
You: the OP?
Me: how?
You: it's mysogyny
me: why?
You: did you read it?
Me: yes

How many more times do you do this before the great soldiers of progressivism can declare another victory? Or is just flinging the accusation the victory?

Imagine that you hear the term "misogamy" repeatedly, in connection with statements you make. Would this lead you to conclude you are talking to people who do not know what misogamy means?

It's possible, yes.

But in this case I'm not the one who made the statements.

 

[dismal]

That is clear to everyone but you and the (silent) Trausti, who has not tried to explain why he called this a case of "female privilege". There is nothing about this story that suggests that Elizabeth Holmes's gender had anything to do with this scandal. Trausti appears to have seen this as a case of a woman somehow using her "feminine privilege" to hoodwink a bunch of naive investors. Men do that all the time, but, when a woman does it, that's really beyond the pale. The best you seem to be able to come up with is that she beguiled the investors with her female attractiveness.

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.

There are clearly cases of women who marry for power and money. Even men do it, when the opportunity arises. What does that have to do with this story? Again, you seem to think that just being a woman and being involved in some scandalous behavior or nefarious activity can just be branded "female privilege".

I'll ask again - why do you assume Elizabeth Holmes attractiveness had nothing to do with her ability to raise money from people who appear to have done a shoddy job of due diligence? And, why is it "misogyny" to suggest it might have?

And I'll ask again: is it "misogyny" to suggest Anna Nicole Smith's attractiveness had something to do with her ability to marry a 90 year old billionaire. This is a yes/no question . It seems regardless of whether you think it's relevant you can answer it either "yes" or "no".

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

What ridiculous questions. You are comparing how people who are attracted marry <==> to people who are "attracted" invest in a company. Yes, tons of people invest in MicroSoft because Bill Gates is "attractive."

NSFW:

Show

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This apparently the first fraud ever and it was a woman behind it. How ever did this manage to get into the press?

 

[braces_for_impact]

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.

Trausti enters thread - Promotes misogyny
Trausti enters thread - Promotes misogyny
Trausti enters thread - Denies misogyny exists
Trausti enters thread - Objectifies women as sexual objects
Trausti starts new thread - Promotes misogyny
*repeat ad nauseum*

Trausti Starts New Thread: Hey I'm just asking questions, how come you guys always ignore context?

It would have been easy enough to link those instances above to posts and threads, but I'll not waste my time on something so trivial to be summarily dismissed.

May as well well create a thread about racism and then complain because Derec came in and was just wanting to "discuss the topic".

With some of you, this is a completely reliable behavior. Not occasionally, not sometimes, not often, always.

We have other threads, where traditional "defenders" or "social justice warriors" or whatever disparaging remark you wish to use show up too, but occasionally they see a cop that did shoot in self-defense, or they see someone they feel got overly sensitive in a racial sense.

I and many others, find this suspicious, and some of us are not afraid to call a spade a spade when we see it. If it hurts your fragile white male ego...meh.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Ok, so how many rounds do we do this?

Exactly three times. My first post, my second one mansplaining my first post to you and this final one, since you have no counter argument, don’t know what “integral” means and pathetically resorted to stuffing straw.

 

[RavenSky]

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.

No one anywhere suggested that she shouldn't be held to account. LD's point was that Trausti made a fraud issue into a gender issue. I'm sure Trausti thinks he is proving some meta-point here, but all he is actually doing is showing that you will always try to turn every topic into an anti-women and/or anti-black screed.

P.S. Those "left-of-center Democrats", you are wrong on that point, too; which you would have known if you had bothered to read even the OP post, much less the article:

"Blue-chip investors included Rupert Murdoch, Larry Ellison, Carlos Slim, Walmart heirs, President Trump’s secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos... Theranos’s board was filled with names like former Defense secretary William Perry, former secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former senator Sam Nunn, former Wells Fargo CEO Richard Kovacevich, super-lawyer David Boies, and President Trump’s secretary of Defense James Mattis...

 

[Copernicus]

That is clear to everyone but you and the (silent) Trausti, who has not tried to explain why he called this a case of "female privilege". There is nothing about this story that suggests that Elizabeth Holmes's gender had anything to do with this scandal. Trausti appears to have seen this as a case of a woman somehow using her "feminine privilege" to hoodwink a bunch of naive investors. Men do that all the time, but, when a woman does it, that's really beyond the pale. The best you seem to be able to come up with is that she beguiled the investors with her female attractiveness.

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.

There are clearly cases of women who marry for power and money. Even men do it, when the opportunity arises. What does that have to do with this story? Again, you seem to think that just being a woman and being involved in some scandalous behavior or nefarious activity can just be branded "female privilege".

I'll ask again - why do you assume Elizabeth Holmes attractiveness had nothing to do with her ability to raise money from people who appear to have done a shoddy job of due diligence? And, why is it "misogyny" to suggest it might have?

Did I say her attractiveness had nothing to do with her ability to raise money? Where? I have no idea whether anyone invested in her company because of her looks. What I said was that her attractiveness had nothing to do with what one would think of as "female privilege". Calling it by that term appears misogynistic, because it implies that her gender was being used in some way to escape responsibility or culpability for her actions. Neither Trausti nor you have presented any evidence at all to support such a thing.

And I'll ask again: is it "misogyny" to suggest Anna Nicole Smith's attractiveness had something to do with her ability to marry a 90 year old billionaire. This is a yes/no question . It seems regardless of whether you think it's relevant you can answer it either "yes" or "no".

Anna Nicole Smith is irrelevant to the discussion, because there is no evidence that female attractiveness had anything to do with the story under discussion. I don't care how many times you demand an answer to loaded questions. I will not answer questions that contain presuppositions you know very well I reject. Nor will I legitimize your false analogy by treating it as having relevance. Not unless you can establish a connection to the topic.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Since Trump, we have learned just where some posters here really stand on things.

 

[dismal]

I'll ask again - why do you assume Elizabeth Holmes attractiveness had nothing to do with her ability to raise money from people who appear to have done a shoddy job of due diligence? And, why is it "misogyny" to suggest it might have?

Did I say her attractiveness had nothing to do with her ability to raise money? Where? I have no idea whether anyone invested in her company because of her looks. What I said was that her attractiveness had nothing to do with what one would think of as "female privilege". Calling it by that term appears misogynistic, because it implies that her gender was being used in some way to escape responsibility or culpability for her actions. Neither Trausti nor you have presented any evidence at all to support such a thing.

And I'll ask again: is it "misogyny" to suggest Anna Nicole Smith's attractiveness had something to do with her ability to marry a 90 year old billionaire. This is a yes/no question . It seems regardless of whether you think it's relevant you can answer it either "yes" or "no".

Anna Nicole Smith is irrelevant to the discussion, because there is no evidence that female attractiveness had anything to do with the story under discussion. I don't care how many times you demand an answer to loaded questions. I will not answer questions that contain presuppositions you know very well I reject. Nor will I legitimize your false analogy by treating it as having relevance. Not unless you can establish a connection to the topic.

So, you can't answer a straight question. Just like no one can explain what was misogynyistic about the OP. Given this, I will go forward believing you are all pathetic asshats who have no arguments with substance, and just go about flinging personal attacks without basis at people who post things you don't like.

Also, you're a racist nazi homophobe too.

 

[dismal]

Since Trump, we have learned just where some posters here really stand on things.

Well, we've at least been able to identify the people who are obsessed about Trump. Trump, trump , trumpity trump.

Everything is about Trump.

Is that Trump under your bed Jimmy?

 

[Trausti]

I don't see how this could be seen as female privilege.

So she's a femme fatale? There's a notion that silicon valley is sexist and that VCs only invest in men. Here, a bunch of old rich dudes handed over wads of cash for a lady without details of proof of concept. Something's going on.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I don't see how this could be seen as female privilege.

So she's a femme fatale? There's a notion that silicon valley is sexist and that VCs only invest in men. Here, a bunch of old rich dudes handed over wads of cash for a lady without details of proof of concept. Something's going on.

Well, that was swift. Dismal, how does Trausti’s shit taste?

 

[barbos]

I don't see how this could be seen as female privilege.

So she's a femme fatale? There's a notion that silicon valley is sexist and that VCs only invest in men. Here, a bunch of old rich dudes handed over wads of cash for a lady without details of proof of concept. Something's going on.

There is a third option - bullshite fatale. By the way, I think she was not alone in that, I believe her professor at Stanfraud University was a founder too.

 

[Copernicus]

Did I say her attractiveness had nothing to do with her ability to raise money? Where? I have no idea whether anyone invested in her company because of her looks. What I said was that her attractiveness had nothing to do with what one would think of as "female privilege". Calling it by that term appears misogynistic, because it implies that her gender was being used in some way to escape responsibility or culpability for her actions. Neither Trausti nor you have presented any evidence at all to support such a thing.



Anna Nicole Smith is irrelevant to the discussion, because there is no evidence that female attractiveness had anything to do with the story under discussion. I don't care how many times you demand an answer to loaded questions. I will not answer questions that contain presuppositions you know very well I reject. Nor will I legitimize your false analogy by treating it as having relevance. Not unless you can establish a connection to the topic.

So, you can't answer a straight question. Just like no one can explain what was misogynyistic about the OP. Given this, I will go forward believing you are all pathetic asshats who have no arguments with substance, and just go about flinging personal attacks without basis at people who post things you don't like.

I can answer straight questions, but you are demanding answers to questions loaded with false presuppositions. Moreover, I have explained why the OP appears misogynistic, but you have ignored those explanations. Trausti is pretty blatant in his misogyny, as you can see with his use of the offensive tone in his last post. His attack on the female CEO was based solely on her gender, not her use of her gender to gain some kind of advantage that men don't have. Attacking women just for being women is misogyny, pure and simple.

You and he have also resorted to the baseless speculation that she could have used her physical attractiveness to entice investors into spending money, but there is no evidence of that at all. And that is not what the term "female privilege" refers to. But maybe you think that women who prostitute themselves are exercising "female privilege" of some kind. Men are being victimized by these prostitutes?

Also, you're a racist nazi homophobe too.

Why the trash talk? I realize that you didn't mean it seriously, but I have been addressing the content of your posts, not calling you names.

 

[Toni]

I'll ask again - why do you assume Elizabeth Holmes attractiveness had nothing to do with her ability to raise money from people who appear to have done a shoddy job of due diligence? And, why is it "misogyny" to suggest it might have?

Did I say her attractiveness had nothing to do with her ability to raise money? Where? I have no idea whether anyone invested in her company because of her looks. What I said was that her attractiveness had nothing to do with what one would think of as "female privilege". Calling it by that term appears misogynistic, because it implies that her gender was being used in some way to escape responsibility or culpability for her actions. Neither Trausti nor you have presented any evidence at all to support such a thing.

And I'll ask again: is it "misogyny" to suggest Anna Nicole Smith's attractiveness had something to do with her ability to marry a 90 year old billionaire. This is a yes/no question . It seems regardless of whether you think it's relevant you can answer it either "yes" or "no".

Anna Nicole Smith is irrelevant to the discussion, because there is no evidence that female attractiveness had anything to do with the story under discussion. I don't care how many times you demand an answer to loaded questions. I will not answer questions that contain presuppositions you know very well I reject. Nor will I legitimize your false analogy by treating it as having relevance. Not unless you can establish a connection to the topic.

Also getting married is different than convincing investors to back your technology and business plan.