Skip to main content

It looks like you’re using an ad blocker that may prevent our website from working properly. To receive the best experience possible, please make sure any blockers are switched off and refresh the page.


Elizabeth Holmes’s downfall is a victory for feminism

Elizabeth Holmes speaking in New York in 2015. Adam Jeffery/Getty

When Elizabeth Holmes went on trial for fraud, the first thing I noticed was her makeover, says Lara Stemple in Slate. Before then, the 37-year-old founder of the fraudulent blood-testing firm Theranos had always looked ultra-masculine. At work, she adopted a gravelly speaking voice and “relentless eye contact”, and wore entirely black clothes. But the moment Holmes faced trial, “the leopard changed her spots”. In court, Holmes’s previously dead-straight hair was bouncy, her lipstick was pale pink, and she entered the building holding her mother’s hand or carrying a nappy bag. It was all tactical. Holmes’s defence peddled the idea that a sweet-looking woman couldn’t possibly be guilty of complex corporate crimes – she wouldn’t have the “wherewithal”.

It’s nonsense. “At Theranos, Holmes was in command.” Employees testified that she was “a hands-on leader” and Holmes herself stated in a 2016 interview that “anything that happens in this company is my responsibility”. How refreshing, then, that the jury didn’t fall for this damsel-in-distress act. In fact, her guilty verdict is a victory for feminism: “accountability for powerful women who falter is consistent with principles of equality”. The jury saw Holmes for what she was – complex and imperfect – not the tedious, girlish stereotype she tried to become. “As a woman, I’ll take capable and accountable over naive and incompetent any day.”

Get our daily newsletter in your inbox

We cut through the noise to give you a fresh take on the world – in just five minutes a day. Sign up for the newsletter here.