| ▲ | FranzFerdiNaN 3 hours ago |
| 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. |
|
| ▲ | OroPla 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | the_other 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > But now "female led" has entered the conversation as something to recognize a scam by. Only by sexists. | |
| ▲ | pessimizer an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > None of the male-led scams have "being male" as a talking point trying to sell the scam If she never mentioned being female I don't remember it. In fact she used to talk in a fake man-voice to sound serious. Other people used the fact that she was a woman to sell the scam because it is still uncommon for a woman to be in that position. There was no possible way for her to avoid it, even by pulling her hair back hard, talking in a goofy deep voice, and dressing like Jobs. edit: my point, if it's not clear, is that the fact that women founders are fewer is why people focused on her being a woman. If that's used to ignore future woman founders, making them rarer, it's a degenerate pattern recognition. | |
| ▲ | catchnear4321 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The patterns did not form themselves. It’s rarely “just pattern recognition at work.” | | |
| ▲ | amiga386 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Scammers/predators/grifters/sociopaths will adopt any disguise and say whatever needs to be said that gets the mark to fall for it. Are priests the pinnacle of trust in your society? You now get a lot of scammers pretending to be (or actually becoming) priests. Are sagely tech leaders announcing the latest new thing on their thought-leadership blogs the way to get investment money? You now have 99% of LinkedIn's membership. Is there a push to reduce qualifications in order to bring in people who don't historically enter your profession? No matter how kind or society-changing you're being, scammers will see that you're doing that, and will abuse that mercilessly. They likewise bilk people who oppose that ideology, and will gladly present themselves as collecting for disadvantaged white boys, before running off with the money. Anything that turns your brain off, whether it's tugging your heartstrings, endorsing your ideology, whatever, scammers are ready to take advantage. You don't have to harden your hearts, but you do have to engage your brain and apply suitable skepticism and scrutiny of their claims. | | |
| ▲ | lelanthran 8 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > Anything that turns your brain off, whether it's tugging your heartstrings, endorsing your ideology, whatever, scammers are ready to take advantage. TheLastPsychiatrist used a good phrase to describe this: cognitive kill-switch. Anything that stops further examination or exploration of an assertion is a CKS. In Holmes' case, the CKS was "you're just sexist if you don't believe"... | |
| ▲ | catchnear4321 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Appreciate you taking the time to engage, unlike those that eye rolled and down voted. (They don’t like admitting their participation in pattern formation it would seem.) |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | xyzelement 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | manphone 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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 | | |
| ▲ | Mainan_Tagonist 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | then again, how good a manager would she have made if she was bossing around colleagues to the point of them quitting? 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. | | |
| ▲ | benzible an hour ago | parent [-] | | Or perhaps this guy perceived normal, appropriate management that he would have been perfectly fine with had it come from a man as “bossy” when it came from a woman. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | lelanthran 11 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > 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'. The scam was sold on her gender ("successful female entrepreneur"), so unfortunately it's going to be part of the heuristic. Male-led scams aren't sold on the gender of the scammer; gender is completely ignored (No one describes those as "a successful male entrepreneur"). Unfortunately, the gender sale was a big part of the scam. I'm looking at many male-led scams, and they did not sell it based on the gender of the scammer. > Which only proofs how deep sexism is rooted. No, it only proves that you have ideology deeply rooted. I believe you see sexism everywhere. The type of person you just want to say "oookay, huh, is sexism here, in the room with us?" |
|
| ▲ | philipallstar 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Which only proofs how deep sexism is rooted. Only if you're determined to look for it. No one promotes companies, or gives special grants, or runs special funding groups, or special networking breakfasts, for men. It's only for women. Women are currently viewed as intrinsically a good thing to run a company, and it's a problem if your company has fewer than 50% women. It's all about identity and not competence. She rode that wave. Men ride other waves, but specifically not that one. Unless you count trans women in sports. Or Tim Walz. |
| |
| ▲ | watwut 15 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > No one promotes companies, or gives special grants, or runs special funding groups, or special networking breakfasts, for men. They do? Epstein totally did that. Thiel totally does that. All those deeply conservative male leaders do that. | |
| ▲ | Grombobulous 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I regret engaging, comment removed. | | |
| ▲ | philipallstar 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 more and expect people to believe you, because who would lie about a thing like that? People now know that someone such as yourself would definitely lie, and so they will check for themselves. You need evidence. > Case in point: there has been zero outrage about trans men. If you looked at a trans man you’d never suggest that a person who looks like this [1] should compete in women’s sports. You’d probably never even realize they were trans unless you were specifically told. That's because a lot of the aim of society is to protect women, in various ways. So men who claim to be women who can beat women in women-only sports competitions, or can go in their changing rooms or bathrooms means women are not being afforded the protections we have tried to give them. That's why we have different bathrooms, changing rooms, and sports contests in the first place. No one cares about a woman entering a men's sporting contest, because a) she almost certainly will never get anywhere and b) if she did, it would be an amazing achievement, and would be men losing out, which very few people would care about. > Just so you are factually and scientifically informed, when trans women transition, they are taking hormone replacement therapy that blocks testosterone. It tends to make them significantly worse at sports as a result. No, you are misinforming here. They don't have to do anything. "Self ID" exists. That's why a male rapist claiming to be a woman got put in a woman's prison in Scotland[0]. Also, for those who do take hormones, hormones don't help with lung capacity, size, Q angle, bone density, and all the many other things that make men better at sport. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isla_Bryson_case | | |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | pessimizer 37 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > No one cares about a woman entering a men's sporting contest, because a) she almost certainly will never get anywhere and b) if she did, it would be an amazing achievement, and would be men losing out, which very few people would care about. No one cares about women entering a sporting contest in the men's category because there is no such thing. There are open categories, and there are restricted categories. The women's category is a restricted category, because 50% of the population deserve their own champions. Just like there are childrens' categories, categories for people who live in Gary, Indiana, and categories for people with different levels of paraplegia. The fact that roughly half of people are men and half are women causes the open category to often be referred to as the "men's" category, but it is not. If a woman can and wants to compete in the "men's" category, she should. If this results in a crowding out of men in the rankings of some sport, they should feel free to start an actual restrictive men's category for that sport. Men's and women's bodies, socialization, and opportunities to practice are different. Men are 50% of the population and deserve their own champions. edit: there's speculation about women eventually crowding out men in ultra-marathons. Then there would be a good reason for a men's category. | | |
| ▲ | philipallstar 25 minutes ago | parent [-] | | That might depend on the event, but the first thing that came up disproves your blanket claim. It's from World Boxing: As part of this policy, World Boxing will operate two categories as determined by sex: a men’s category and a women’s category. To be eligible for the men’s category, a competitor must be male at birth. To be eligible for the women’s category, a competitor must be female at birth. [0]
This is for the safety of women.> edit: there's speculation about women eventually crowding out men in ultra-marathons. Then there would be a good reason for a men's category. I don't think so. No one cares about male competitors who aren't the best of the best. [0] https://worldboxing.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/World-Box... |
| |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | cindyllm an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
| |
| ▲ | silphcore 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I enjoyed your response, sorry about that |
|
|
|
| ▲ | mvdwoord 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| No one markets ‘male founder’ as a reason to trust the business. Once gender is framed as a virtue, people start asking whether that claim actually means anything. |
| |
| ▲ | Applejinx 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | The government does! At least right now in the United States. And yeah, I think it's reasonable for people to start asking. |
|
|
| ▲ | JuniperMesos 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| No one thinks that the number of males participating in business is too low, and that it is socially-beneficial and morally-important to promote male-run businesses. |
|
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | Gravityloss 37 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| https://xkcd.com/385/ This sort of thing is really hard to avoid. If you've ever spent time as somehow very different in a social setting, you can see this happening all the time. Even in positive ways. |
|
| ▲ | Eddy_Viscosity2 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Scamming as a male can actually improve your reputation. Donald Trump is currently the president of the united states despite years of ripping people off. If Bernie Madoff could run as a republican senator, I'd given him decent odds to win. |
| |
| ▲ | gedy 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Unfortunately he was a registered Democrat. | | | |
| ▲ | philipallstar 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > 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. | | |
| ▲ | Aaargh20318 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | philipallstar 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | That makes no sense within the topic of conversation. | | |
| ▲ | shermantanktop an hour ago | parent [-] | | Here’s how I think it makes sense: accountability for unethical behavior arrives via more or less direct routes depending on who you are. The more you look like a high-status leader, the longer it will take, and the more likely it arrives as a fine or a suspended sentence followed by an eventual redemption story published in the New Yorker or equivalent. But targeting other high-status people ejects you from the white glove treatment. |
|
| |
| ▲ | Eddy_Viscosity2 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is true, but I think my point still holds. If he were to get of jail, say by donating a substantial sum to Trump and then coincidentally getting a full pardon. And then he ran, I don't think that his infamy as a scammer would hurt him. If anything, that fame and name recognition would help. He could just lie and say he was framed and set up and yada yada and people would believe him. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | Hilliard_Ohiooo 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [dead] |
|
| ▲ | micromacrofoot 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I inherently don't trust old white guys so i'm not sure that's true |
| |
| ▲ | azan_ 39 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Then you are sexist and racist, nothing to be proud of! | | |
| ▲ | micromacrofoot 21 minutes ago | parent [-] | | funny that no one said that to the parent comment that blindly speculated that holmes caused more sexism simply for being a woman yet bring up the ruling class and that gets called out for sexism despite the endless string of fraud cases covered by those demographics |
| |
| ▲ | tmtvl 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Thing is, SBF, Tate, and Paul aren't old (well, depends on your frame of reference I suppose); so even discriminating on age wouldn't help you much. | | | |
| ▲ | theopsimist 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You a vc? | | |
|