What? The first article is literally titled "Is Criticism Of Billionaire Elizabeth Holmes Sexist? Yes & No", implying at the least that some criticism is sexist.
The next article:
> While Holmes doesn’t go so far as to label it sexism, her message is clear: The story would have played out differently if she were a man.
The next article:
> "Elizabeth Holmes is a great example of maybe why the women are so frustrated. She is a woman entrepreneur who built a fabulous company, did great things for consumers and she got attacked,"
Every linked article says or implies that Holmes wouldn't have been criticised as harshly if she were a man. Which is pure whataboutism, especially given her fraud risked lived by being pushed into clinical settings when the she and the company knew that their claims were bunk.
> The first article is literally titled "Is Criticism Of Billionaire Elizabeth Holmes Sexist? Yes & No", implying at the least that some criticism is sexist
If you read the article, you would have seen that criticism of how she ran the company is not sexist. Criticism that incidentally says sexist things is.
> The story would have played out differently if she were a man.
Holmes isn't a journalist and has made many fraudulent claims. This doesn't support your claim.
> Elizabeth Holmes is a great example of maybe why the women are so frustrated. She is a woman entrepreneur who built a fabulous company, did great things for consumers and she got attacked,"
Again, this quote is from a Theranos investor, who has also made many fraudulent statements, not a journalist.
I note with interest how you don't justify your other links at all, which don't even obliquely support your claim.
implying at the least that some criticism is sexist.
And some has been, as the article pretty much demonstrates. That doesn't mean that any criticism of her as a fraud is sexist, as you implied people were saying in those articles.
The next article:
That's paraphrasing Holmes herself! Reporting on what she says does not mean the journalist agrees.
The next article:
He's a family friend of hers and an investor in the company; he has both a personal and a financial stake in it. That's not an example of "wokeness" from SV, but of someone trying to protect their investment.
Every linked article says or implies that Holmes wouldn't have been criticised as harshly if she were a man. Which is pure whataboutism
It's only whataboutism if used as a tactic to discredit all criticism, but from those articles, only Holmes herself and the investor/family friend seem to do that.
It's not whataboutism if pondered as issue in itself; Holmes is a fraud and deserving of criticism, and yet she can also be victim of sexism, and that can be worth talking about too.
The next article:
> While Holmes doesn’t go so far as to label it sexism, her message is clear: The story would have played out differently if she were a man.
The next article:
> "Elizabeth Holmes is a great example of maybe why the women are so frustrated. She is a woman entrepreneur who built a fabulous company, did great things for consumers and she got attacked,"
Every linked article says or implies that Holmes wouldn't have been criticised as harshly if she were a man. Which is pure whataboutism, especially given her fraud risked lived by being pushed into clinical settings when the she and the company knew that their claims were bunk.