61–70 of 320 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sure did. And it backfired in a way that could make future female innovators guilty by association. I can see investors asking themselves "That girl looks sharp, but is she another Elizabeth Holmes?"
Plenty of male-led businesses also turned out to be scams, and yet no one goes 'that guy looks sharp, but he is male so seems suspicious'. Which only proofs how deep sexism is rooted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plenty of male-led businesses also turned out to be scams, and yet no one goes 'that guy looks sharp, but he is male so seems suspicious'. Which only proofs how deep sexism is rooted.
It's just pattern recognition at work. None of the male-led scams have "being male" as a talking point trying to sell the scam, so it's about as notable as a scam founder wearing black shoes. But now "female led" has entered the conversation as something to recognize a scam by. Whenever it comes up again this memory will lit up and make people wary.
It’s rarely “just pattern recognition at work.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If Bernie Madoff could run as a republican senator, I'd given him decent odds to win. And yet somehow he - a man - is in jail. A jail built by men, condemned by a justice system designed by men to lock bad men up.
Because Madoff scammed rich people. You can get away with a lot if you scam the poor. Not so much when you target the wealthy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I regret engaging, comment removed.
EDIT: luckily I quoted the things I was replying to, because the above poster drastically edited his/her post, just resorting finally to namecalling. > Even this “trans women in sports” issue you brought up for no reason is deeply rooted misogyny in action. As soon as someone becomes a woman they are a second-class citizen. Claiming this does not make it so. I said nothing misogynistic. You can't just claim this any…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is that anything subject to hype is also at a greater risk of being a scam. If we were desperate for red-headed founders then the risk of any given red-head riding the wave of hype rather than substance is higher than at baseline. That's the point being made. Your comment about male led misses it because there's currently no hype about male led. Though I can see it coming back.
That’s only true in the public Zeitgeist, there is a huge preference among portions of the workforce for male leadership stated or unstated. This is not a good thing. I literally worked with a guy who was about to quit because a woman would boss him around and she was about 10,000 times as qualified as he was
Management is not just about qualification, it's also about the human aspect.
I have seen enough toxic femineity at work to say it is actually a thing, on par with toxic masculinity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sure did. And it backfired in a way that could make future female innovators guilty by association. I can see investors asking themselves "That girl looks sharp, but is she another Elizabeth Holmes?"
Plenty of male-led businesses also turned out to be scams, and yet no one goes 'that guy looks sharp, but he is male so seems suspicious'. Which only proofs how deep sexism is rooted.
I watched the entire trailer fully believing that Nathan Fielder had managed to find the most unhinged uncanny look-alike actress to play Elizabeth Holmes. This trailer was so good that I would have been fully prepared to watch a 2 hour dramatised mockumentary about Theranos. Finding out that this was really Elizabeth Holmes was a huge shock
Love everything Nathan Fielder does. The trailer is awesome. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GGJSRFWALTI