Sometimes the con is there for all the world to see. That is how I think of Elizabeth Holmes. All the investors I've read about are men and I presume they found her attractive and nothing else mattered. I also find it interesting she clothed herself in the masculine "Steve Jobs" look and used a deep voice. So much for male logic and rationality.
Steve Jobs was likely exactly like Holmes! Except he had a buddy with the brains to deliver all the tech he promised - Steve Wozniak. If there was a Woz at Theranos they would likely be ringing bells at the opening of NYSE and being lauded as geniuses. The technology she promised is actually likely to be available within coming decades, but the investors were too greedy to do their due diligence as to how immature things were.
I suspect Holmes and fellow jailbirds like Bankman-Fried, Shkreli et al are likely the same as any other entrepreneur or finance-bro, they just broke the 11th commandment. Think of the robber barons of the late 19thC - crapulence of the rich is a historical constant, average people just got a break between WW2 and the oil crises. We are now just heading back to where we came from, sadly.
Such an illustrative case. The part that will always stay with me was her fake voice. Imagine the sustained effort to lie continually no matter what you are saying, just by lying about your own voice. I have a colleague with the exact same voice and a narrative about herself that is fashionably au courant. I always wonder what her speaking voice sounded like in high school.
"We can’t build good things on lies. ... but ultimately it will all end in tears."
Amen to that. You probably know of Solzhenitsyn's quip:
“And therein we find, neglected by us, the simplest, the most accessible key to our liberation: a personal nonparticipation in lies! Even if all is covered by lies, even if all is under their rule, let us resist in the smallest way: Let their rule hold not through me!” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Live Not By Lies
And Helens Joyce and Dale had some illuminating comments on that theme as well:
HJ: "And like all mammals, we do come in two sexes. And so something that tries to deny something as basic as that is nearly as fundamental as denying that we breathe air or that we need to sleep or we need to eat. Not quite, but pretty close to it. And you can expect dire consequences if you lie in your law and your policymaking and your education of all sorts at every level in school and universities about something absolutely fundamental to the nature of humanity. .... And so when you have a lie at the heart of an institution, the next thing that happens is everybody has to be silenced about it. And before you know it, that institution turns on its head and seeks to do the exact opposite of what it was set up to do."
Though while she's right about the two sexes, that does not mean that every member of every anisogamous species -- including the human one -- is always one or the other. The sexes are -- by definition -- a binary category, but it is not an exhaustive one.
But ICYMI, you might take a look at a classic, "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and The Madness of Crowds: All Volumes", which may have some relevance to the transgender clusterfuck (excuse my French):
However, while I'll readily agree with you that there's a great deal of "nonsense" and "deception" wrapped up in the concept of "gender", part of the problem is that there is some scientific justification in the basic concept -- largely sexually dimorphic personalities and behaviours -- that too many are too quick to dismiss or sweep under the carpet. Something of a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. My attempt to put the concept on something of a more scientific footing:
Cheers. You’ve confused me with a radfem, I’m not a social constructionist, I’ve never denied gender is a useful way to describe social meanings and roles that cultures give to the sexes. Having said that I don’t have an I interest past that. I have read numerous evolutionary behaviourist type things, they just are not my interest.
Some more credible and scientifically tenable than others. I kinda think, many others likewise, that too many of them are shooting themselves in the feet for one "reason" or another. Too bad, really, as there are more than a few justified "grievances". I periodically like to quote a famous Canadian suffragette, Nellie McClung:
No other movement is infantilised like feminism. Feminism is the political organisation of women for the interests of women and girls it’s not a religion.
I'm all in favour of feminism, at least in principle, but there are more than a few flies in that ointment. And of particular note is the insistence -- rising to an "article of faith" thundered from feminist pulpits far and wide, and by far too many including Maya Forstater and Helen Joyce of Sex Matters "fame" -- that "sex is immutable", that there is some "mythic essence" to the category:
Which is flatly contradicted by the standard biological definitions for the sexes. And it IS just a matter of definition -- there's no intrinsic meaning at all to any of our definitions, "male" and "female" in particular. "female" once meant no more than "she who suckles":
Bruce Jenner and his ilk could probably qualify as such by that definition -- even if the milk is probably unfit for human consumption.
But as something of a synopsis of those "flies", you might have some interest in a review of "Professing Feminism" -- by a couple of actual "women", I might add:
Can't say that I've ever read the book myself -- on my "To read" list -- but this criticism should give any feminist worth their salt some reason to at least question their premises and assumptions:
"The authors, however, demonstrate that these problems have existed since their ideology’s inception, and were particularly common within Women Studies programs. The authors wrote of the isolationist attitude that dominates many of the programs, along with a virulent anti-science, anti-intellectual sentiment driving many of the professors, staff and students."
Something of a damning indictment of much of feminism if you ask me.
Kudos on connecting the posthumanist dreamings of elites which partly drive the gender movement to the Theranos affair, I didn't make that connection.
I followed this story - but my take was a bit different. I was actually amused by the fact this woman got one over these venture capitalists and managed to lure them into throwing their money at her. I wonder if they threw the book so hard at her out of vindictiveness that a young woman pulled on them what they likely did their whole careers but for which they instead got lauded for their business acumen. 99% of these financial parasites get to keep their money and hob nob with likes of Elon.
Sometimes the con is there for all the world to see. That is how I think of Elizabeth Holmes. All the investors I've read about are men and I presume they found her attractive and nothing else mattered. I also find it interesting she clothed herself in the masculine "Steve Jobs" look and used a deep voice. So much for male logic and rationality.
Steve Jobs was likely exactly like Holmes! Except he had a buddy with the brains to deliver all the tech he promised - Steve Wozniak. If there was a Woz at Theranos they would likely be ringing bells at the opening of NYSE and being lauded as geniuses. The technology she promised is actually likely to be available within coming decades, but the investors were too greedy to do their due diligence as to how immature things were.
I suspect Holmes and fellow jailbirds like Bankman-Fried, Shkreli et al are likely the same as any other entrepreneur or finance-bro, they just broke the 11th commandment. Think of the robber barons of the late 19thC - crapulence of the rich is a historical constant, average people just got a break between WW2 and the oil crises. We are now just heading back to where we came from, sadly.
Such an illustrative case. The part that will always stay with me was her fake voice. Imagine the sustained effort to lie continually no matter what you are saying, just by lying about your own voice. I have a colleague with the exact same voice and a narrative about herself that is fashionably au courant. I always wonder what her speaking voice sounded like in high school.
"We can’t build good things on lies. ... but ultimately it will all end in tears."
Amen to that. You probably know of Solzhenitsyn's quip:
“And therein we find, neglected by us, the simplest, the most accessible key to our liberation: a personal nonparticipation in lies! Even if all is covered by lies, even if all is under their rule, let us resist in the smallest way: Let their rule hold not through me!” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Live Not By Lies
https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/50709343
And Helens Joyce and Dale had some illuminating comments on that theme as well:
HJ: "And like all mammals, we do come in two sexes. And so something that tries to deny something as basic as that is nearly as fundamental as denying that we breathe air or that we need to sleep or we need to eat. Not quite, but pretty close to it. And you can expect dire consequences if you lie in your law and your policymaking and your education of all sorts at every level in school and universities about something absolutely fundamental to the nature of humanity. .... And so when you have a lie at the heart of an institution, the next thing that happens is everybody has to be silenced about it. And before you know it, that institution turns on its head and seeks to do the exact opposite of what it was set up to do."
Though while she's right about the two sexes, that does not mean that every member of every anisogamous species -- including the human one -- is always one or the other. The sexes are -- by definition -- a binary category, but it is not an exhaustive one.
But ICYMI, you might take a look at a classic, "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and The Madness of Crowds: All Volumes", which may have some relevance to the transgender clusterfuck (excuse my French):
https://www.amazon.ca/Extraordinary-Popular-Delusions-Madness-Crowds/dp/1539849589/
However, while I'll readily agree with you that there's a great deal of "nonsense" and "deception" wrapped up in the concept of "gender", part of the problem is that there is some scientific justification in the basic concept -- largely sexually dimorphic personalities and behaviours -- that too many are too quick to dismiss or sweep under the carpet. Something of a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. My attempt to put the concept on something of a more scientific footing:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/a-multi-dimensional-gender-spectrum
Cheers. You’ve confused me with a radfem, I’m not a social constructionist, I’ve never denied gender is a useful way to describe social meanings and roles that cultures give to the sexes. Having said that I don’t have an I interest past that. I have read numerous evolutionary behaviourist type things, they just are not my interest.
Kinda takes a score card to keep track of all of the "sects" in feminism ... 😉🙂
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_movements_and_ideologies
Some more credible and scientifically tenable than others. I kinda think, many others likewise, that too many of them are shooting themselves in the feet for one "reason" or another. Too bad, really, as there are more than a few justified "grievances". I periodically like to quote a famous Canadian suffragette, Nellie McClung:
“No nation rises higher than its women”:
https://isabelmetcalfe.ca/enduring-spirit-of-the-famous-5/
No other movement is infantilised like feminism. Feminism is the political organisation of women for the interests of women and girls it’s not a religion.
"No true Scots-woman?" 😉🙂
I'm all in favour of feminism, at least in principle, but there are more than a few flies in that ointment. And of particular note is the insistence -- rising to an "article of faith" thundered from feminist pulpits far and wide, and by far too many including Maya Forstater and Helen Joyce of Sex Matters "fame" -- that "sex is immutable", that there is some "mythic essence" to the category:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12P9zf82TicPs2cCxlTnm0TrNFDD8Gaz5/view
Which is flatly contradicted by the standard biological definitions for the sexes. And it IS just a matter of definition -- there's no intrinsic meaning at all to any of our definitions, "male" and "female" in particular. "female" once meant no more than "she who suckles":
https://www.etymonline.com/word/female#etymonline_v_5841
Bruce Jenner and his ilk could probably qualify as such by that definition -- even if the milk is probably unfit for human consumption.
But as something of a synopsis of those "flies", you might have some interest in a review of "Professing Feminism" -- by a couple of actual "women", I might add:
https://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2009/07/27/professing-feminism-noh/
Can't say that I've ever read the book myself -- on my "To read" list -- but this criticism should give any feminist worth their salt some reason to at least question their premises and assumptions:
"The authors, however, demonstrate that these problems have existed since their ideology’s inception, and were particularly common within Women Studies programs. The authors wrote of the isolationist attitude that dominates many of the programs, along with a virulent anti-science, anti-intellectual sentiment driving many of the professors, staff and students."
Something of a damning indictment of much of feminism if you ask me.
Kudos on connecting the posthumanist dreamings of elites which partly drive the gender movement to the Theranos affair, I didn't make that connection.
I followed this story - but my take was a bit different. I was actually amused by the fact this woman got one over these venture capitalists and managed to lure them into throwing their money at her. I wonder if they threw the book so hard at her out of vindictiveness that a young woman pulled on them what they likely did their whole careers but for which they instead got lauded for their business acumen. 99% of these financial parasites get to keep their money and hob nob with likes of Elon.