So what you&#x27;re saying is that SV&#x27;s well-documented sexism is (among many other things, also) may also be a significant contributing factor for reckless investment. But in this case, I don&#x27;t see the problem. If in 9 cases out of 10 women get the short end of the stick due to sexism, that some of them are occasionally able to turn the tables and use it for their own advantage is nothing but a cause for celebration: &quot;Ingenious Woman Turns Investors&#x27; Harmful Sexism Against Them&quot;. Social hacking at its best!<p>If women were only truly able to pull-off &quot;a Holmes&quot; (i.e., con male investors out of their money using their sexual charms), maybe that threat would finally get investors to start seeing sexism as a serious problem.<p>The only thing that&#x27;s bugging me about your solution to sexism, is that according to that logic, women should be at a great advantage when raising money from VCs (unless you also claim that their natural lack of cunning offsets that advantage), yet in practice we see the exact opposite. So it&#x27;s unclear to me how -- without any other information on  investors&#x27; reasoning -- femininity could be at all mentioned as an advantage when fundraising, while data shows it to be otherwise.