The Racism and Sexism of Diversity Mongers

by Elusive Wapiti on February 5, 2012

While “pale, male, and stale” is a catchy paean for those apex fallacy-afflicted gender warriors and their itchy quota fingers, it does tend to belie the straight-up racism and sexism inherent in the motives of those who push for more “diversity” in corporate boards. As Exhibit A, I give you how Facebook’s all-male board has recently drawn the ire of the diversity brigade:

Most of Facebook Inc. (FB)’s more than 800 million users are women. You wouldn’t know it from looking at the board, whose seven directors are all men.

“We’re long past having to defend or explain why women should be on boards, given all the data that shows how companies with female as well as male directors perform better,” said Anne Mulcahy, former chairman and chief executive officer of Xerox Corp. and a director at Johnson & Johnson Co., Target Corp. and Washington Post Co. “It’s unfortunate when companies with a large percentage of women constituents don’t reflect that in their boardrooms.” A Catalyst survey of Fortune 500 companies found that those with three or more female directors outperformed those with fewer between 2005 and 2009, achieving on average 43 percent better return on equity. As Facebook prepares to raise $5 billion in an initial public offering, the composition of its board shows its business strategy is faulty, said Susan Stautberg, co-founder of New York-based Women Corporate Directors, which promotes female board membership.

“It doesn’t make sense for a company that claims to be so forward looking to not have any women directors,” she said. “If they just have an old boy’s network in the boardroom, they won’t have access to diverse ideas and strategies.”

The other directors are Donald E. Graham, chairman and CEO of The Washington Post Co.; venture capitalist Marc Andreesen, co-founder of Netscape Communications Corp., James W. Breyer, CEO of Breyer Capital; Peter A. Thiel, co-founder of Palantir Technologies Inc. and a fund manager at Clarium Capital LLC; Reed Hastings, chairman and CEO of Netflix Inc.; and Erskine B. Bowles, president emeritus of University of North Carolina.

[Facebook's board is] drawn largely from the male investor community as is often the case at Silicon Valley start-ups, said Mulcahy, who groomed Ursula Burns to succeed her at Xerox, where four of 11 directors are women. As Facebook and other young companies mature, “they need to break out of this pattern and have more diverse representation,” said Mulcahy, who is chairman of Save the Children Inc. “And women also need to be better represented in the private equity industry.”

I’ll get to the sexism/racism inherent in this passage in a moment, but first, permit me to address Ms. Mulcahy’s claim that “we’re long past having to defend or explain” the business case for female representation on corporate boards. A quick google of “women corporate boards” yields a slew of various economic and law journal hits in support of greater female representation in corporate governance. Two noteworthy documents in support of bolstering female representation on corporate boards include this one by McKinsey & Company, a company dedicated to promoting diversity in management and corporate performance, and this one by Lord Davies, a former Labour MP who has also taken a personal interest in boosting female representation on corporate boards. Both reports cite the greater return on equity of companies that have women on their boards (e.g., 41% better RoE, 56% higher EBIT margin in the McKinsey study), as opposed to companies with male-only boards. Both reports also suggest ameliorative measures to boost female representation on corporate boards, to include set-asides, special processes to access, select, groom, and promote female managers. The Davies report, apparently impatient with the glacial pace of increases in female participation on boards, even goes as far as suggesting quotas:

All Chairmen of FTSE 350 companies should set out the percentage of women they aim to have on their boards in 2013 and 2015. FTSE 100 boards should aim for a minimum of 25% female representation by 2015…

The Financial Reporting Council should amend the UK Corporate Governance Code to require listed companies to establish a policy concerning boardroom diversity, including measurable objectives for implementing the policy, and disclose annually a summary of the policy and the progress made in achieving the objectives.

So then. The mask is off, and equality of opportunity isn’t enough. Those old-boys-clubs must be, well, clubbed over the head and forced to permit women into their li’l rascals treehouses. But is Ms. Mulcahy’s vaunted business case that clear?

The short answer is no. Here’s why: First, the entire dataset is suspect because the research presented in these reports was conducted by organizations and individuals potentially biased in favor of promoting the phenomenon they were measuring.

Second, just as in the “pay gap” myth, which pivots around the ludicrous idea that companies in a dog-eat-dog competitive marketplace sacrifice profitability to maintain more-expensive-yet-equally-skilled men on the payroll, if sexual diversity is such a slam-dunk driver of profitability, why aren’t companies jamming women into their boards and into their management ranks like crazy?

Third, there is the problem of causality, in that the direction of causality may be reversed. We are told that companies with women on their boards outperform those without. But consider this: Perhaps it is true that companies with women on the boards are large and successful enough to afford women on their board and withstand the costs of female preferences and set-asides in hiring and selection processes in their company? Or maybe that interested, available, and sufficiently successful female board members are such rare birds that only the most successful companies can attract them? Or perhaps that more successful companies seek female board members and female middle- and upper-managers as talismans to ward off brand-destroying scrutiny by government regulators and social grievance advocacy groups?

Fourth, could it be that the entire diversity meme, usually pushed as a means to avoid groupthink among staid, calcified corporate boards populated by silver-haired white men, is itself groupthink on a massive, societal scale?

Our relatively small sample of interviews (36) provides no evidence of the emergence of what might be reasonably called a master narrative of board diversity. One plausible candidate-a business version of Justice Powell’s Bakke narrative-appears from time to time. Our subjects have mentioned their beliefs that diversity creates a “richer conversation,” “an entirely new perspective,” “different points of view,” and “a very positive dynamic.” But it is a theoretical narrative without concrete detail, a story without substance. When invited to elaborate, subjects have digressed into instances that had little to do with race or gender, and in fact have often distanced themselves from demographic variables. And none expressed anything more than a hope that diversity would correlate with business performance. Overall, our subjects tell a story that amounts to little more than “it seems like a good thing to do.”

Now that the business case for diversity on corporate boards has been well called into question, I will now address the blatant sexism and racism inherent in the entire Bloomberg article. First, let us evaluate the article’s title: “…board shows white male influence”. I suppose the headline could be a reference to how Facebook is successful because it is run by white men, but how likely is that? More likely, I think, is that the headline is meant as a slam on clubby white boys keeping those girls out because they can. It’s a race- and sex-baiting attack against one of the only groups which is still a legitimate target for sexist/racist offensive comments in the present PC climate.

Second, Ms. Mulcahy is quoted as saying “if they just have an old boy’s network in the boardroom, they won’t have access to diverse ideas and strategies”. Now, if I were a woman or a non-white, and if I believed that I should be judged by my ability and the content of my character, this statement would make me quite unhappy. For the very implication that my skin color or the fact that I possess a vagina versus a penis expresses itself in certain attributes, attitudes, traits, skills, abilities, or behaviors is by definition sexual or racial stereotyping, if not straight-up sexism or racism. This headline implies that those presumed liberals who push illiberal diversity measures are using race and/or sex as a proxy for whatever qualities they are seeking, something that if done by others in other contexts, would be roundly and accurately denounced as sexist or racist.

Third, let us assume for a moment that such stereotyping and racism/sexism is now permitted. Let us also assume that the sort of sex-based grooming that Ms. Mulcahy herself engaged in is now permitted for white men. We would then have a culture in which white male executives and managers are hired, selected, and groomed for no other reason than because they are white and male. Somehow I don’t think Ms. Mulcahy and her ideological fellow-travellers are prepared for that reduction-ad-absurdum outcome…yet this is what she practices by her own admission.

I’ll wrap up this post with this observation: the champions of diversity, as exemplified by this article, have apparently abandoned the principles of equalitarianism upon which they formerly stood. They now, nakedly, advance openly racist and sexist ideals and advocate for State-enforced discrimination no different in character and tone of the sort which they claim they opposed two generations ago. Rather than having progressed to the next higher plane of human existence, they have merely swapped one form of prejudices for another, and one form of State oppression for another. They are truly Orwell’s pigs from Animal Farm.

Exit questions: At what point have we achieved enough diversity? If “diverse” is defined as “not a white dude”, is “completely diverse” the complete extirpation of white male presence in an organization?


About the author: EW is a well-trained monkey charged with operating heavier-than-air machinery. His interests outside of being an opinionated rabble-rouser are hunting, working out, motorcycling, spending time with his family, and flying. He is a father to three, a husband to one, and is a sometime contributor here at Spearhead. More of his intolerable drivel is available at the blog The Elusive Wapiti.

{ 71 comments… read them below or add one }

b-nasty February 5, 2012 at 11:32

Specifically with reference to FaceBook, why is it not considered that a young, technology company would naturally be predominately male? Just because more women use FB than men doesn’t imply that women would naturally be drawn to the coding and design process that goes into building a company like that.

Also, why isn’t it enough for that muckraker Hymowitz that Sheryl Sandberg (FB COO) is likely to be one of the richest women on the planet after the IPO? Even with the heaps of (probably deserved) praise and respect Sandberg gets, the board must also be 50/50.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 1
Attila February 5, 2012 at 11:38

The board may be male, but I read the four largest investors were all Jewish.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 43 Thumb down 7
piercedhead February 5, 2012 at 11:47

For the last 50 years we’ve been hearing that women on boards would mean better designed products – hands-free telephones, better color choices etc.

Yet here’s a company that is massively successful with so many women – and it’s an all-male affair!

If women should be on the board, why didn’t women start the company? They’ve had 50 years for goodness sake! Where are all these brilliant, motivated, highly successful companies founded and run by women?

If women are not going to innovate and start businesses like men, why should established businesses take the risk of employing them as board members? Starting new enterprises and taking clever, calculated risks is precisely what’s required, and women as a group just don’t seem to be interested.

As an investor, I’d be delighted to see more women on boards if it meant greater net profit and higher dividends. But I don’t accept any feminist advocacy arguments due to their history of chronic lying. What makes my mind up is what I can see with my own eyes. If women want big board representation, they have to start and grow big businesses on their own. If they can’t or won’t do that, then they are only begging.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 83 Thumb down 0
Twenty February 5, 2012 at 11:49

… Mulcahy, who groomed Ursula Burns to succeed her at Xerox …

If you’re a man, you’re wasting your time working for a woman. Boycott them.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 1
Nemo February 5, 2012 at 11:49

Norway tried to force its corporations to adopt a minimum of 40% female board members. There was no minimum for men, mind you, just women.

In response, some corporations sold themselves to foreign megacorps to avoid compliance with this law.

The net result *reduced* the number of board positions open to women on Norwegian-registered companies. Those that stayed and complied had their perfromance reduced by 20% in one year, according to one study:

“Using a common market-based measure of corporate governance, known as Tobin’s Q, the study found that companies in Norway actually performed an average of 20 percent worse the year after adopting the quotas, with those companies that were required to make the most drastic changes to their boards suffering the largest negative impact. The measure, named for the late James Tobin, the 1981 Nobel laureate in economics, is a ratio of a company’s market capitalization to the replacement cost of its assets, which economists consider to be the best proxy for investor confidence in a company’s management. ”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/world/europe/28iht-quota.html

Many megacorps are already based, on paper, overseas, often in tiny Caribbean islands. If the laws are made too onerous, even *more* jobs will be offshored to China and other Asian nations, and everyone in the US will be even worse off than we are now.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 0
Just Some Canadian February 5, 2012 at 11:54

These are very technical jobs and there’s simply no reason to decree that boards should reflect general demographics because it would be “nice.” These are profit-oriented organizations, and the jobs are veblen goods. (Look it up.) You don’t get to be on the BoD of any company unless you have sharp elbows.

Let me put it another way: the iPhone in your pocket didn’t get there because people sat around singing Kumbaya. It got there because brilliant minds who didn’t take no for an answer made it with the help of the tech geniuses who understood what could be manufacturable in the near future. The idea that this constellation of people should be uniformly distributed is a political statement that has nothing to do with running a business.

No everyone gets to have a Rolex.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 57 Thumb down 0
Budnick February 5, 2012 at 11:56

Also, why isn’t it enough for that muckraker Hymowitz

After doing a search I realize that this Hymowitz is a different cunt than the “man up” bitch.

That name must have a curse on it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 0
Just Some Canadian February 5, 2012 at 12:00

I would add to this that it’s a leap to say that the users of a company product should be reflected by the company’s governance. Automotive companies sell products to as wide a distribution of people as Facebook but no-one would suggest that customer categories should be reflected at the board level.

Finally, Facebook is a tech company. It’s designed by programmers — arguably the most antisocial people around next to mechanical engineers. The same logic applies: the people developing a product should be chosen from the best people with the relevant skill set, and that will necessarily be reflective of a smaller pool of people than the general populace.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 0
Just1X February 5, 2012 at 12:05

I hear that the vast majority of baby food is eaten by babies; why the hell aren’t the manufacturers’ boards full of babies?

Similarly dog food companies should be run by dogs, apparently.

These companies should just have the balls to tell their shareholders that the board will be populated by the best people to make money for the shareholders (in theory anyway).

Enough of this feminist bollox

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 89 Thumb down 0
greyghost February 5, 2012 at 12:05

I like this 800 million people buy computers and internet service to use an internet product. All set up buy a very small group of guys under 30 (I could be wrong) Some sour puss cunt writes an article that says business could be even better if half of those guys were women. So what the bitch must be saying is there are two people living under a rock in southern Libya that have decided they are going to hold out until facebook is has a more women on the board.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 1
Joe February 5, 2012 at 12:07

Anne Mulcahy needs to stop whining, invest her money and start her own company. Board members on FB will be there because either:
1) they helped start the co.
2) they are part of plans to develop the co.
3) they represent significant shareholder interest in the company.

If Anne Mulcahy wants to see more women on boards, then she needs to encourage more women need to start more co’s, get the skills / experience to develop co’s or take significant shareholdings in co’s.
Of course, all these things are much, much riskier than whining to Big Daddy Gov’t to crowbar you into an already successful operation, established through risks taken by someone else (men).

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 0
Rocco February 5, 2012 at 12:17

@ Pierce

The idea that men take more risk, with the economic down turn, some of the shit these feminists are trying to shovel to shoe horn themselves into cushy board jobs where they can openly give preferential treatment to women employees (surely some sort of reparation for men in the past employing goddesses as secretaries).

So does that mean that every “gender” org needs at least 40% male membership?

We have a precident. I believe a celebrated author and mens rights activist Warren Farrel was on the board of NY chapter of NOW.

MRA is getting on the board of your local now chapter.

If you are refused, come here and tell us about it…..maybe we can drum up some pressure…..at least we could get the ball rolling.

There is no place that sexual diversity is more required than on powerful government agencies determining family issues that directly affect men like the Dept. of Education, what is now cabinet level direct feminist manning of the nations social policy apparatus.

We must push for at least 40% men, but, just like Palin is no friend to women I am told, we’ll have no Kimmels, no traitors to men on these boards.

With 40% men on all custody, child support, charitable and gendered cancer related commitee’s the kind of corruption we have unearthed here would cease overnight.

I’m kidding but maybe it might work.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1
AnotherJay February 5, 2012 at 12:23

800 million users are women? They must mean total registered users, because according to a report from December 2011, there were 845 million monthly active users. Despite being a social platform that naturally attracts women, I have doubts that 94.6% of its active users are women.

In comparison, the entire United States Population is about 310 million, which means that more than 60% of Facebook’s entire audience isn’t even in the same country of residence.

And let’s face it, the greater bulk of Facebook’s users aren’t even qualified to run any company, let alone something as big as Facebook. One of their largest demographics is the 18-24 range, and we all know how qualified they are to run multi-billion dollar companies…

I suppose an additional counter-argument could be made that Facebook is already attracting women easily enough. They’re clearly doing well enough without Team Diversity at the helm.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
doclove February 5, 2012 at 12:38

The Orientals especially the Chinese will not fall for racial guilt any time soon. It’s only something stupid White Gentile people do. Oriental especially Chinese will not fall for gender guilt either because it’s only something stupid men of any race in the West, but especially Stupid Western White Gentile men do. There seems to be more stupid Gentile White men than any other race or gender in the West especially the USA. The Chinese only care about performance, and this is why I predict they will become dominant as time goes on. There’s no stupid unnecessary guilt for their race(ethnicity) or gender. I guess we men in the West of any race, but especially the White Gentile men love to lose, get cuckolded and be abused.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 53 Thumb down 5
Wirbelwind February 5, 2012 at 12:38

Nice, shaming and forcing companies into accepting female members when the company is already big and successful. Where were those women when Facebook was just a tiny project run by a group of geeks ? Oh right, they were fucking the school’s football team instead of learning vital skills.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 66 Thumb down 0
doclove February 5, 2012 at 13:03

I realize that I may be voted down for what I wrote above. Know that I’m a Gentile White man. I think too many men in general in the West particularly Americans have been propogandized into foolishly living within the lie of feminism, and will not shed the lie even when they are shown what a sham feminism is. You can say the exact same in racial issues of Gentile White men and women. There’s no sense of reality. I’ve lived and worked with Orientals in East Asia. they do not share our delusions in regards to gender and race. If you are not of their ethnicity or race, you will have a harder time with Orientals on average. If you are not White, you will have a harder time with them still especially if you are Black on average. They help their own first, and they do have group hierarchies in how a person of a certain group is treated. Not being prejuiduiced is a weaker concept there. So is being unjustly bigoted. They’re slow to lose their prejuicuice and unjust bigotry. They’re less likely to believe in feminism too. You’ve been warned.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 41 Thumb down 1
keyster February 5, 2012 at 13:11

“Exit questions: At what point have we achieved enough diversity? If “diverse” is defined as “not a white dude”, is “completely diverse” the complete extirpation of white male presence in an organization?”

It’s important to mention that if there absolutely must be a “white dude” present, that he be slightly effeminate if not androgynous (ie – signaling he’s Gay). If he’s too masculine or athletic he’s viewed as a threat, a bully — potentially antagonistic and disruptive. It’s important he fit the “stock photo” profile, for the glossy Annual Report.

Funny Ms.Mulcahy didn’t mention the Yahoo! disaster…
…or how about Avon?

Since being headed up by a Ms. Andrea Jung, Avon’s stock (AVN) had dropped 45% in 2011 alone. Avon’s third quarter earnings report stated that sales targets would be unattainable and disclosed that there were two ongoing SEC inquiries. Net income in the third quarter fell to $164.2 million, or 38 cents a share (below analysts’ estimates of 46 cents a share), from $166.7 million, or 38 cents, a year earlier. The results marked the fourth time in five quarters that profit trailed analysts’ projections. There was also a three-year probe into an alleged bribery of foreign officials has already caused the dismissal of four Avon executives. As of December she has officially resigned and the board is looking for her replacement.

A sassy female executive just got finished running one the most successful make-up companies in history into the ground, and it’s now in an abysmal turn-around situation. For $7 Million a year plus stock options, she brought a “unique perspective” to Avon’s way of doing business. You go grrl!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 46 Thumb down 3
Uncle Elmer February 5, 2012 at 13:14

“The Orientals especially the Chinese will not fall for racial guilt any time soon. It’s only something stupid White Gentile people do. Oriental especially Chinese will not fall for gender guilt either because it’s only something stupid men of any race in the West, but especially Stupid Western White Gentile men do.”

———————————-

Am working on a comedy screenplay “Duluth Need Negroes”, based on a true-life story. A portion of ticket sales will go towards providing bus tickets to people of color so they can move to Duluth, where white people are serious about examining their “privilege” and addressing the disparities between racial groups :

http://wsau.com/blogs/post/jbader/2012/jan/29/does-duluth-billboard-campaign-label-all-white-peo/

http://www.perfectduluthday.com/2012/01/29/un-fair-campaign/

http://www.lifehouseduluth.org/news.html

The theme of the campaign is “It’s hard to see racism when you’re white” with the goal of getting the community to “See It, Know It, Stop It.” Desired outcomes of the campaign include:

Creating opportunities for white people to see white privilege (Images, stories, timelines, statistics, workshops, films, dialogues).

Creating dialogue throughout the community on white privilege.

Breaking the silence around white privilege and racism.

Moving white people to accept racism as their issue/responsibility.

Building a base of white allies to work together with people of color to eliminate racism individually and institutionally.

Key Messages of the Campaign:

It is unfair that some members of our community have unearned advantages because of the color of their skin and others face barriers, discrimination and disadvantages because of the color of their skin.

People of color in Duluth experience incidents of racism every day.

It’s hard to see racism when you are white because we live in a monoculture where the norms of whiteness are seen as normal.

It is time for white people to see the privileges, power and advantages they have and how white privilege perpetuates racism.

Our community needs a strong and vocal voice that says racism is unacceptable and white people need to step up and work to eliminate it as allies with people of color.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1
American February 5, 2012 at 13:35

Gender, Gender-Raunch feminism is not like yer mothers “Equality” feminism of 30-40 years ago.
Modern Gender, Gender-Raunch feminism is clearly the most dominant form of feminism practiced on University campuses around the country.
The most distinguishable charecteristic of the change that has taken place in Modern feminism, is “Equality” feminism used to attack the broad concept of males as a whole, while modern Gender, Gender-Raunch feminism specifically targets males sexuality, sexual preferences.
For example, If one was to attend a modern “Gender-feminist” classroom, or study the rhetoric that “Gender-Feminists” publish, they would quickly see that Hetero-sexual males are considered the perverts, the rapists, the wife beaters, the capitalists, ect, ect, and somehow the homosexual males are pure and innocent. How they came to this conclusion is bizarre, and i would like to see the studies they based their conclusions on.
This change between “Equality” feminism, and Gender-feminism has many far reaching consequences that society is just starting to comprehend.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 10
Brian February 5, 2012 at 13:41

This is just another case of distorting the free market for somebody’s or some group’s special interests. As with any business, Facebook ought to be free to make their voluntary transactions and deals provided that relevant market principles are met (e.g. no fraud, deceit, theft, coercion, harm to third parties, etc.). Third parties, and especially the government, should absolutely NOT intervene lest society steps once more towards centralization. I think most of us can imagine the other unfair and deplorable consequences that direction entails. We’ve been going that way for some decades already and look at what’s already happening to men. How much longer before it’s completely 24/7 open season on men? Such nightmares.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Raj February 5, 2012 at 13:46

If my 7 year old nags me to let him drive the car and I eventually let him, its me who is stupid not him.

On the other hand I’ll be glad to take him to the arcade so he can drive the video game race car so he can get his fix.

Similarly, a lot of female executive positions (that matter) are ceremonial in nature and a man is always consulted one way or other. Either that or its a temporary position.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 0
American February 5, 2012 at 13:52

I have realized that the vast majority of the males who complain about patriarchy are bureaucratic pork bloater males who went to orderly, sane and civil schools that an MRA would define as “Patriarchal”.
Young males of the Matriarchy are too busy fending off general matriarchal violence, Chaos, and confusion in their schools to get even any basic form of education.
If one was to think about what is really going on and look “outside the misinformation Curtain”, they would conclude that Upper white middle class “Gender-feminist” males are breaking other males patriarchies, so as to kinda “break” any potential competition for their fat federal bureaucratic pork bloater job.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 9
noletup February 5, 2012 at 13:55

Elusive wappitti…

Your reasoning is sound and cogent … but you are up against too many entrenched interest groups, that have comfortably operated by other coded measures of human worth for a very long time here.

A persons quality, character and the content of their skills and experience have here, only ever rarely been the sole yard stick by which they have been judged for merit. It is only when other coded criteria have been assessed for and passed do objective qualities come to have any bearing on decision making, if at all.

This fact of coded political acceptability being the ultimate criteria here in personal advancement pertains so much so, … as to make human qualities of character, skill, experience, suitability, knowledge and qualifications merely euphemisms or excuses for other reasons and decisions.

The good news is that, against objective criteria, the non-objective criteria for assessing human worth, is so very inferior, costly and cummulatively damaging to companies, corporations and whole countries, … they soon enough feel compelled by bad consequenses to do the objectively right thing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2
Aharon February 5, 2012 at 14:06

How often do most corporate Boards meet and how much into the details or micro-management of a firm can they accomplish? Can’t women accomplish much without all the special class laws and rules bent in their favor? What industries have women started the past fifty years besides the Sexual Grievance Industry? It seems like men start and develop the industries, and then women legally muscle their way in and legally force men aside. What career fields have women established that provides career opportunities in a field or specialty not targeted to serving females? For example, I’m excluding careers such as middle age women going around teaching young mothers how to properly breast feed their infants.

We can start calling affirmative action; The Smelly Pussy Law.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 2
American February 5, 2012 at 14:16

Gender-Raunch males shouldn’t complain about patriarchy with their mouths full of state and federal bureaucratic “Pork Bloating” dollars.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 20
Rocco February 5, 2012 at 14:29

From reading the posts you guys do know this is already law in half of Europe and the plans for the U.S. are being drawn up right?

The cause is the economic down turn. Feminist leaders capitalized on the idea that men testosterone made them unfit to sit on company boards.

Watch the movie “To Big to Fail”, see how the men and women are portrayed, the country (female voters) already embrace this.

The only hope the US has, and it’s probably more bad than good, but corperations own american politics and they could torpedo this.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2
Coastal February 5, 2012 at 15:19

Like some guys have already said, if the wimminz have got all these mad business skills, how come they never use them to start up successful businesses?

Apparently, these super talented female business execs are a bit like vampires, except that instead of only coming out at night, they only come out in corner offices in downtown Manhattan, with a six figure salary plus a chauffer driven limo and corporate jet on standby.

Just like diversity never requires equal representation of wimmen in the sewerage or slaughterhouse sectors, it never requires women to work for six months without pay while they hustle and bustle to get their first clients through the door.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 0
Anon February 5, 2012 at 15:29

Note that the former CEO of Xerox is now spouting this nonsense, rather than some non-profit feminist who is shielded from market forces judging her performance.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 19
E February 5, 2012 at 15:51

The problem with most men is they choose to take a defensive position by making logical arguments whenever a female complains about this point when instead the appropriate response should be to tell her,
“Shut up woman, now go make me a sandwich!”

Gentlemen let me make this clear, the other side has already made up it’s mind. No amount of logic is going to pierce their thick skull.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 3
Lord Simon February 5, 2012 at 15:57

As a black male I can say this. I never took a handout, and never held an AA position. I’m pretty damn proud of that. When I was broke, I worked my butt off. Let me tell you what I have learned by living at the bottom. Alot of people do not want to work. They don’t want to earn what they have, they want someone to give them something for free. I get clients in my office all the time who come to me with their hand out. I get tons of african american clients who want me to “hook a brother up”, I get women trying to flirt or complaining about their two kids and their stuggles who want me to drop my prices. I ignore all of it. I’m 37 and starting a new career due to the economy crashing and I can’t afford to give out handouts. My father, a military man, always told me, work hard and earn your way. Bitching about FB board diversity is the most ridiculous thing I have seen today. If you didn’t earn it, why should you have it?

Also I find it disgusting that feminist have co-opted diversity to really mean “white women”. That’s the true meaning of the word in this day and age. They are not interested in putting a black man on the board, they aren’t interested in putting a black woman or latino woman on the board, they are strictly interested in putting white women on the board. They just know that the racial club is one they can use effectively to do that while not having to put minorities in those positions in actual practice. Oh of course they will throw in a token. And of course most minorities will support them in the hopes of getting a leg up for free. But let’s face it. Nobody deserves to be there if they didn’t put in the work. That’s the reality of life!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 69 Thumb down 5
piercedhead February 5, 2012 at 16:42

“Note that the former CEO of Xerox is now spouting this nonsense, rather than some non-profit feminist who is shielded from market forces judging her performance.”

Considering Xerox’s less than stellar peformance, I don’t think I’d treat their management’s opinions any differently than those of non-profit feminists.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
E February 5, 2012 at 16:43

doclove

The Orientals especially the Chinese will not fall for racial guilt any time soon. It’s only something stupid White Gentile people do.

I agree.
The Chinese have 5,000 years of history and they are not going to be bullied by some silly bleeding heart Liberal feminist multiculturalism ideology that’s been around for only 50 years.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 0
doclove February 5, 2012 at 16:49

@ Lord Simon
You’re awsome!!! I’m a White Gentile male in his mid forties. You’re right that feminist women usually want to put a White woman in the desired positions. sometimes they will hand it to Black, Latino or other non-White Women though. Other non White races(Blacks, Latinos etc.) and Jews want their own people in power. Honestly, so do Gentile-White men, but in order to live within the lie Gentile White men are supposed to pretend otherwise. The difference is that a Gentile White man will give women, Jews, and other races chances if the person looks out for the Gentile White man’s interest. Gentile White men would rather have the OTHER as a leader than a Gentile White man if the Gentile White man is a traitor to Gentile White men. People are usually tribal fools based on race, ethnicity, religion and gender usually but not always in that order. I knew this before the military but, I learned even more in the U.S. Army being posted in South Korea and being a veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2
doclove February 5, 2012 at 17:00

@ E
We Gentile Whites have a history dating back to ancient Greece(3000 yrs. old) and some say to ancient Iraq and ancient Egypt(5000 yrs. old). I’ll say to Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, and I’m not even of Greek or Italian descent nor even Iraqi or Egyptian descent. Our civilization is old too. It’s just that Oriental people aren’t quite as stupid about some things as we Westerners are right now. They simply never had the luxury, although with wealth, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore have picked up some but not most or all of our stupidity.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
Anonymous February 5, 2012 at 17:26

American/gender raunch guy. At first I thought you were an autistic but well meaning mra. You talk gibberish in buzzwords and are easily one of the worst writers I’ve ever seen. And if you saw some of the bullshit I have to read on a regular basis, you’d be horrified. Now however you are proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are a troll. Fuck off.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 23
Attila February 5, 2012 at 17:50

For all we know – Facebook management could be cooperating with foreign intelligence.

Never had a Twitter-Twatter account, or a Facebook/Yidbook account either.

The Persian proverb says: The pen is in the hands of the enemy”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 3
Jaego Scorzne February 5, 2012 at 17:58

Yesd EW – the White Race is danger and White Men face not only vicious women, but the whole grievance coalition of Blacks, Jews, Hispanics, Asians, etc. That the Coalition will collapse after we are disenfranchised is obvious. But we must let ourselves be completely disempowered but be ready to snatch what we can of the Ex-United States after the Fall.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 11
American February 5, 2012 at 20:17

I believe the term “Gender-Raunch” is about as accurate as any definition of modern feminism is going to get.
Gender, comes from feminist rhetoric itself, as most of the current feminist indoctrination of youth takes place in universities around the country in classes that are called “Gender” studies.
Raunch, comes from what Ariel Levy describes in her book as modern “Raunch Culture” feminism.
These two characteristics are the defining traits of modern feminism, as opposed to yer mothers “Equality” feminism of 30 years ago.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8
Pops February 5, 2012 at 21:37

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 37
Anon February 6, 2012 at 00:07

No discussion of ‘broads on boards’ is complete without this famous letter from TJ Rodgers, back in 1995 :

http://www.cypress.com/?rID=34986

His logic against women on boards is so comprehensive and airtight that a failed CEO like Anne Mulcahey would destroy her entire reputation in a clumsy attempt to shame it away.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 19
Anon February 6, 2012 at 00:09

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 27
Anon February 6, 2012 at 00:14

Anne Mulcahey said :

“And women also need to be better represented in the private equity industry.”

Sure.

Just as soon as they are also better represented among bomb-diffusal experts, garbage collectors, prison guards, construction workers, dockworkers moving multi-ton crates, and combat troops in female-only divisions, so that casualties are 50-50.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 19
Chinese_bear February 6, 2012 at 02:26

doclove February 5, 2012 at 12:38

The Orientals especially the Chinese will not fall for racial guilt any time soon. It’s only something stupid White Gentile people do. Oriental especially Chinese will not fall for gender guilt either because it’s only something stupid men of any race in the West, but especially Stupid Western White Gentile men do. There seems to be more stupid Gentile White men than any other race or gender in the West especially the USA. The Chinese only care about performance, and this is why I predict they will become dominant as time goes on. There’s no stupid unnecessary guilt for their race(ethnicity) or gender. I guess we men in the West of any race, but especially the White Gentile men love to lose, get cuckolded and be abused.

You are correct in your observations. White people fall for the guilt of race, gender, etc. In fact, in today’s Western world, GUILT is used as a mechanism for control. Its used to manipulate people to the liberal-left way of thinking. (Unfortunately, it will backfire as it enables minority groups to continually ask for more power under victimhood status. They won’t stop until they are satisfied…And they will never be satisfied!)

I am Chinese living in Australia. I typically ignore most of Australia’s nonsense. I stick to traditional common sense values handed down to me from my mother and father. I can certainly tell you that we only care about one’s ability to perform. More than anything else. If you can’t do what you claim to do; get out. Its that simple. No excuses to hide behind. We don’t care of your colour or your gender. (Or any other BS you can use to justify yourself.)

White women whinge at me on a regular basis about how unfair things are, when its clear they won’t get off their bum and do it. I always give them the brutal truth and they never complain to me a second time. Oddly, some even ask me out! It appears they don’t like a kiss ar$e and prefer a man that doesn’t tolerate their nonsense. (Compared to them complaining to a white friend of mine…He tries to empathise and comfort them in order to try to sneak into their pants! He ends up being “like a brother” to them, every time I see him do it. I think you folks call that “Friend Zone”, right?)

Feminism doesn’t work in China, because we don’t tolerate rubbish ideals that doesn’t logically add up. When they demand “equality”, we take it literally to the point such that it annoys them. ie: Treat women to the male standard and never let them re-define things to their benefit…When they chant “Equality”, they’re talking about special privileges to their standard. We don’t offer that. We don’t pay people or put people in a position based on non-performance. You either demonstrate you’re capable of the job or you can get out. We simply have no tolerance for BS behaviour. That’s why we have harsh sentences compared to the West.

Its white males that seem to tolerate this kind of illogical behaviour and accept political correctness. Something isn’t registering with white males. You’ve handed out too much lee-way. You are not drawing a line in the sand and saying “No more! Enough! You aren’t about equality any more. You are manipulating the system to your benefit. You are about acquiring power under the disguise of equality. That’s why you promote women in management positions while conveniently ignoring the low status careers like plumbers, garbage collectors, electricians, front-line combat soldiers, etc.”

Its now about promotion of status and power for women. White male, power elites have it…And Feminists want it. They are determined to get it with Government backed enforcement. Its all a part of their long term goal of bringing a female dominated society. (They don’t realise it will cause society to fall into chaos as their ideal won’t be achieved.)

The problem is, too many women fall for its illogical fallacy as it backfires on them in the long run. This is especially true for those who still want children! Then they wonder why no man wants to marry a power hungry female! Notice how they always chant the line: “They’re just jealous because I’m more successful than them!”

No. Men just don’t find you attractive because you are no longer acting like a lady. You’ve become this hybrid-female. An elitist male-wannabe. You’ve become a pseudo-male competitor that no man wants to have as their partner. Not even Chinese males want you! That’s how much you disgust us! (Find any white Western career woman working in China, and you’ll see they have a hard time with dating! In fact, dating is not really an option for white Western women in China. So they have no choice but to learn to live a single life. Of course, they’ll be constantly hounded with questions from the elderly: “Why you no marry? No husband? No children? Why?”)

China will do well in the long term because it isn’t tied down by this politically correct mess. We’re focused. We have five-year plans for our Nation. We don’t have nonsensical elections every 4 years. We focus on the health of the Nation: Its prosperity. Our politicians are assigned to their minsterial position based on their skills and competence. No based on how much they can talk. Those who screw-up are not let off the hook. They are serverely punished with lengthy jail sentences, fines, and even executions. (Unlike Western politicians who mess up.)

The biggest difference between a Chinese politician VS a Western one is this:

* Chinese = Come from a science and engineering background. They’ve studied how to solve problems. (Often educated by Western universities).

* Western = Come from a Law, Arts, etc background. They know how to lie to people, but not solve problems. In fact, problems don’t actually get solved and taxpayer’s money gets spent! (The voting public wonders why things haven’t improved! Where did all the money go?!)

Is China perfect? No. But its certainly in a better state than most Western nations. Even to the point that it scares Western leaders, based on the rate its going. (Australia’s Foreign Minister mentioned in an alarmist tone about how the world will be dominated by a non-Democratic country in 20 years time. He’s indirectly referring to China.)

There’s one thing you will never see the Chinese do. Complain how life is unfair and how we should also have special privileges at the cost of someone else. We use common sense from our history of thousands of years, and work hard. We may not be as good as you today, but think how we’ll do in 10 to 20 years time. Every day we’re improving.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
stonelifter February 6, 2012 at 03:12

feminism, affirmative action, wellfare etc is all part of the Frankfurt School cultural marxism; ie war on middle class heterosexual White men. You support that war to whatever degree you support leftist causes

if you’re black, mexican, a woman etc and have a job, been to college got promoted etc how do you know it’s not based on affirmative action? No one is going to tell you you’re an affirmative action job, admittance, grade etc.

if you go to a hire a black, mexican, woman etc how do you know they really made the cut or got passed along due to affirmative action?

progressiveness destroys everything, even self respect of those who them try to help

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 3
Art Vandelay February 6, 2012 at 05:17

Anne Mulcahy, former chairman and chief executive officer of Xerox Corp. and a director at Johnson & Johnson Co., Target Corp. and Washington Post Co.

What she really wants to say: “The gravy train needs to keep on rolling”. Maybe she can vacate 2 of her board seats to benefit eligible woman?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Anonymous February 6, 2012 at 05:33

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 19
Pops February 6, 2012 at 06:27

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 42
American February 6, 2012 at 06:37

Interesting, Im finding that whatever the article, whatever the context, that using the term “Gender-Raunch” immediately puts the American Gender-Raunch community into a defensive position.
The best defense is a powerful offense!!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 11
Smoke & Mirrors February 6, 2012 at 07:26

Most of those accounts are fake ones created by Internet marketers. Picking a moderately-attractive or very attractive female is SOP for most of the tactics used. Those numbers are inflated and a lot of them are just dummy accounts created by bots.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Art Vandelay February 6, 2012 at 09:18

If you are white and achieved the same, how do you know it is not based on Implicit Bias (something multiple studies have shown to be quite prevalent)?

Hard to find the answer without a level playing field.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1
Towgunner February 6, 2012 at 09:57

Not enough women on BOD’s…this is the same thing as women complaining that there aren’t enough women entrepreneurs. This is the way things are because men are overwhelmingly entrepreneurial in nature vs. women. Just like with the BOD issue, feminist want to construct outcomes. Never mind, engaging in the true litmus test, which is literally to let women on their own do it themselves…er without encouragement from a brainwashing media, without government sponsorship such as quotas or grants, without NGOs smear campaigns etc. I don’t think Henry Ford had a virtual cheer leading squad of fanatical celebrities, tv shows and movies falling over themselves to “empower” women. I never saw an old picture with a billboard saying “accomplis her” Nor do I think he was brainwashed when he majored in women’s studies to go into some “male dominated” field. I think Ford saw an opportunity and out of a combination of want and necessity and he just did it himself, relatively speaking. Why wasn’t it Mrs. Ford? If in a libertarian society, women on their own merits and volition, all of a sudden break with historical and natural trends and become more entrepreneurial then there is something to be said. Indeed, so long as it is a market driven force then we can only expect the most efficient and optimal outcome. But…we don’t see this, have not seen this and even with all the support (which almost guarantees success) continue to see underwhelming numbers. Why aren’t there women on the Facebook BOD? The right and correct answer (to women in particular) – none of your business. Let Facebook decide on their own if women are necessary, I’m sure Zuckerberg wouldn’t resist he seems progressive enough. But, it’s not surprising he didn’t…why, because contrary to what some people believe women suck to work with. Furthermore, the problem is not complaining enough (or too little) about women lacking on BODs…the real problem is women having to complain about this in the first place. Just like with entrepreneurs, if women were inclined to be on BODs then this would have happened a long long long time ago. It’s not the government’s place to decide who gets on a company’s BODs…it’s the company because, obviously, they know what is best for them. Of course, the most insidious part of the post above is the reference to “data” that apparently has long since validated having women on a BOD because it magically increases every conceivable metric for good performance. It’s just sad to read this and know that despite being riddled with ignorance, emotionalism and radicalism, this is believed.
One last parting shot. Compare the objectives of an unfettered company versus a women NGO’s intentions. The company wants what every other company wants – to be profitable preferably more so than the year before and to remain operational and solvent. With this profitability and stability in place, said company can go onto support the greater good by providing income and jobs. Then we have women’s objectives, which is simply put – me. I want to be on a BOD because I want there to be a woman, full stop. Profit orientated vs. me. How’s that for a business plan.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Tom936 February 6, 2012 at 10:26

AnotherJay February 5, 2012 at 12:23

I suppose an additional counter-argument could be made that Facebook is already attracting women easily enough. They re clearly doing well enough without Team Diversity at the helm.

Great point, AnotherJay. The Feminists made exactly the opposite argument about video games. Since most video gamers are male, they said that the video game industry needed more women in it to attract more female gamers, and once again demanded more positions for women.

So the opposite rationale leads them to the same conclusion.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Ambassador February 6, 2012 at 10:32

Diversity is just a code word for anti-white.

No one says Japan needs to be more diverse. No one says Mexico needs to be more diverse. No one says Somalia needs to be more diverse. But they do say that the US, the UK, Australia, Canada, and all of Europe needs to be more diverse.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 43 Thumb down 4
Robert February 6, 2012 at 11:22

There are many feminist that use facebook as a platform to spew their tripe and BS. They also have the nasty habit of spamming the home page with their idiotunlogical “women/females as victims” crap. I have shut many of them down with facts they cannot ignore. After realizing I am a MRA/ Cunter-feminist, many female “friends” unfriended me. Now I am getting friend requests from other MRAs and others that oppose feminism. Mr. Marc Rudov, Mr. Paul Elam, and my MRA friend, have another audience to teach the truth about feminism. It must piss feminists off that they did not invent facebook.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Robert February 6, 2012 at 11:22

A man invented it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Robert February 6, 2012 at 11:27

I have not only facebook friends who are antifeminist, I have Father’s Right’s Activists as friends. Facebook is useful as a networking site for MRAs, FRAs, Counter-feminists and antifeminists. I am doing everything I can to expose the truth to the masses. Facebook is a useful tool to help wake people up.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Robert February 6, 2012 at 11:30

“The Racism and Sexism of Diversity Mongers”

These mongers are both sexist and racist. They are hypocrites and liars.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Richard February 6, 2012 at 15:26

Here’s an interesting idea for a Twilight Zonesque solution.

In the interests of remediating the pay gap and under-representation of women on boards, we have quota systems and wage controls (we’re already halfway there).

At the same time, to remediate the workplace injury and death discrepancy, we create a Federal Bureau of Workplace Casualty Equity, which will travel the country randomly maiming or killing hundreds of female project managers, arts-non-profit leaders, etc., until injuries/deaths are equal by gender.

I can’t imagine any Forbes Woman (TM) contributor objecting to this.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Mark Plus February 6, 2012 at 19:21

I belong to a currently fringe movement which women actively seem to avoid getting involved with:

http://www.depressedmetabolism.com/is-that-what-love-is-the-hostile-wife-phenomenon-in-cryonics/

And that has its advantages. Women haven’t pestered cryonics organizations for their lack of “diversity.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jaego Scorzne February 7, 2012 at 01:38

Being White is a both genetic and cultural. Most Mexicans are Mestizos and thus are not White. Jews might be considered White genetically but by and large they reject it in favor of their own ethnic identity, so they fail the cultural test.

The Irish and the Italians were always White but had to become American, that’s the difference you don’t want to see. There was prejudice against because of history of conflict with the Irish and their darker skin and foreign language with the Italians. And of course both were Catholic in a Protestant Country. Formidable obstacles but not insurmountable since we were strong enough to demand that they assimilate – and there was something to assimilate to.

Take the Lebanese – not European White but at least Caucasian. If Christian they make good Americans. But if Muslim, it’s a no go since they feel different and superior and aren’t about to assimilate.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 2
David G February 7, 2012 at 02:21

Memo to all corporate employees :
- Do not show any respect to women in board rooms as they probably did not earn their position.
- Start looking for employment elsewhere as the unqualified board members will eventually destroy the company.
- Avoid dealings with other companies that practise similar sexist and racist policies.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
David G February 7, 2012 at 04:38

Stefan Molyneux presents an excellent Feminism is Socialism with Panties.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNx2SLJVwy8

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
King Alfred February 7, 2012 at 07:36

On a related note, women are extremely underrepresented in Arlington National Cemetery. I have yet to hear a woman complain about this monstrous inequity.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Common Monster February 7, 2012 at 09:20

Addition to MRA platform: 40% male representation on the “board” of The View.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Matt K February 7, 2012 at 18:13

Anne Mulcahy?

former chairman and chief executive officer?

of Xerox Corp.?

OH, you mean THIS Anne Mulcahy?…

“When she became CEO on Aug 1, 2001 the stock price was $8.25, and on Jan 1, 2002 when she became chairwoman the stock price was $10.05. On May 21, 2009, the day she announced her retirement as CEO, the stock price was $6.82″

…and no, that not down to a stock split…
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=104414&p=irol-dividends

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
stonelifter February 7, 2012 at 18:35

If you are white and achieved the same, how do you know it is not based on Implicit Bias (something multiple studies have shown to be quite prevalent)?
—–
Because if you’re a White man the deck is legally and culturally stacked against you on the things I mentioned, in favor of blacks, mexicans, women etc.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0
Rusty February 7, 2012 at 20:05

Let women take over FB and it will look and follow MySpace in two shakes. These women are so dumb about technology and everything connected to it, and so greedy for total domination, that they cannot see how dumb and grasping they really are.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
book of anon February 8, 2012 at 19:15

Reading this article made me realize something….. The cartoon channel’s customers and viewers are mostly children, yet there are no children present behind the running of cartoon channel. Did her bitchiness Mulcahy know about this,? someone needs to tell her!!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
BCDad February 9, 2012 at 13:04

When women start fighting to die in combat like men, when they fight for the equal right to dig ditches, work nights, die and become homeless like men, whey they fight for men to have equal rights to their own children, assets and income, then I will stop believing that feminism is about something other than privilege and entitlement.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
doclove February 14, 2012 at 08:11

@ Golden_bear
I give you a belated thankyou for backing me. I lived in South Korea off and on between 1996 and 2006. I’ve visited Japan, Hong Kong and Macau. I am a Christian Catholic,Gentile, White of European descent American man and a veteran of both the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War although I am no longer a Soldier nor in the U.S. Army. I made positive comments about you in Joe Zamboni’s, “A Golden Uterus Syndrome” 14 February 2012 article in my comments.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
doclove February 14, 2012 at 08:13

Correction
I meant to say “The Golden Uterus Syndrome” article.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: