More Women Mean More risk

by Featured Guest on April 15, 2012

By WdF, a reader from Germany

The “Bundesbank” has published a paper that finds, that more women in the board of a bank correlates with a higher risk. The “Bundesbank” is the German counterpart to the federal reserve system in the US and has used it’s information number on 3,525 banks from 1994 to 2006, which means the accumulated information from 19,750 bank-years.

The paper opposes the feminist claim, that women would be more risk averse than men. I can’t say it proves feminists wrong, because it is only one paper, and the reasoning might be faulty. [1] However, it is from an renowned institution, and arguments against feminism coming from what is essentially a government institution are all the more remarkable.

In general, state agencies are not as inundated with feminism as politics. The “Statistisches Bundesamt” for example writes in it’s statistics, that the difference in average pay between men and women does not mean, that women get less pay for the same work. They know, they also say so, but politicians continue with their ramblings on the “discrimination of women”.

Anyhow, most probably we will see similar papers come out in the future.

Honestly, I haven’t read the 80 page paper myself yet; I summarized the information from an article on “Sciencefiles“ in German, and added some information that might be interesting to readers abroad. Maybe I should have read it, but if I try to read it and write a summery and a comment, I’ll never get finished. Or at least not in a reasonable time frame. Fortunately for readers of the Spearhead the paper is in English, (except for a small passage near the beginning,) so readers can read it, and post comments to this article, or write one of their own.

[1] I’m certain that women are not per se more qualified to lead enterprises than men. If they were, there would be more successful companies founded by women. However, I’ve learned not to trust one statistic, even if I agree with its findings, and while I have the ability to find gross mistakes, I have missed important points before, and if I don’t find a mistake, that does not mean there is none.

{ 71 comments… read them below or add one }

Just Some Canadian April 15, 2012 at 13:28
Epoche* April 15, 2012 at 14:26

Women are risk adverse with their own lives and property and hence want to socialize the risks of everyday life. They may be more prone to risk taking behaviors when playing with other people’s chips (banks with fdic insurance) for example.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 52 Thumb down 0
Tyrion Lannister April 15, 2012 at 14:34

Interesting find. It does go against both previous claims and my own intuition, since women are a minority in banking and minorities are usually risk averse for obvious reasons. This maybe could be taken as a sign that “woman” is becoming less of a special designation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2
Zorro April 15, 2012 at 14:41

women would be more risk adverse than men…

I could be wrong (one is not infallible), but I think you mean “risk averse.”

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 2
bruno April 15, 2012 at 15:16

Women are normally more risk avers then men, and will normally play it safe, take a back seat from the action, and then go along with whoever is the winner.
However, in banking, they are not risking their own money ( oh no, they would never risk that ), but only the customer’s money, so that might explain why women seem to cause more risky behaviour by the bank.

The funny thing is, that this study has been labelled immediatly as “sexist” by the economic blow where i found it: http://www.econoshock.be/friday-fun-tze-germans-no-longer-like-helga

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 1
Gunn April 15, 2012 at 15:49

Banks being risk-taking may be correlated to women in senior positions, but that doesn’t imply causation.

Banks that took greater risks during boom years would be more likely to have been profitable than those that were risk averse. Greater profitability allows an organisation to afford more ‘waste’, so they were able to employ more women than less profitable organisations.

You see the same justifications being used for women on company Boards in general (i.e. successful companies tend to have more women directors) but the logical analysis is usually flawed, in that only successful companies can afford to waste their money on affirmative action.

This comes back to bite companies that fall for the feminist line, as shown by recent experiences in the scandinavian countries where companies that were coerced into having more ‘balanced’ Boards have done worse over the last few years than peers who have lower ratios of women at director level.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 0
bruno April 15, 2012 at 15:49

While at the same time, articles decribing women as better in this or that arera, are never described as sexist.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 48 Thumb down 0
JeremiahMRA April 15, 2012 at 15:56

Another example of women inferior to men.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 16
Art Vandelay April 15, 2012 at 16:08

Well it’s not like the board really has all that power. I think there aren’t many German banks with women as CEO or president but we hardly got any banks left anyways.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
Traveller April 15, 2012 at 16:12

Obviously the word risk here has 2 different meanings.

Women are less prone to take risks, and it is one thing.

Women are more emotive so they decide on gossip and feelings, and this is, in finance, a bigger risk. And of course they know if something goes wrong they can blame men and they are protected by affirmative action.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 45 Thumb down 2
piercedhead April 15, 2012 at 17:04

“…it is from an renowned institution, and arguments against feminism coming from what is essentially a government institution are all the more remarkable.”

It is remarkable. 10 years ago this kind of admission would have been unthinkable.

I can recall in China, not that long ago, entire bodies of thought on economic matters were absolutely forbidden – not officially of course, but everyone knew never to venture into certain topics if they wanted to stay out of trouble. Then Deng made a few forays into this no-man’s land, and slowly, without any great fanfare, that which could not be said began to be said openly.

It would be something if this admission by the Bundesbank was indicative of an early thaw of the great feminist winter that has frozen tongues in the West for more than 30 years.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 50 Thumb down 0
Antifeminist One April 15, 2012 at 17:51

Somewhat related:

The Insurance Australia Group already provides 14-weeks paid leave. Now it is doubling the salary of new mothers in its workforce for the first six weeks back in the job.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/actu-welcomes-double-salary-for-mums/story-fn3dxity-1226327521506

Not sure what the real idea behind this is. Combat the very real threat of low birth rates or simply companies bowing to pressure for giving even greater economic power to women.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1
AndrewV April 15, 2012 at 17:55

Well, we have the example of Norway, home of the killer of Cultural Marxists, who :

“required public-limited firms to have at least 40% of board seats filled by women in 2003. Voluntary compliance in the country failed, so the law made it compulsory in 2006, with a two year transition period”

See:
http://www.theglasshammer.com/news/2010/03/11/is-norway-working-the-case-for-women-on-boards/

Apparently it has not worked out as well as hoped :

“Dittmar and Ahern’s study found that when a board had a 10% increase in the number of women, the value of the company dropped. The bigger the change to the structure of the board, the bigger the fall in returns”.

There are some rationalizations offered about why this may be. I leave it to you guys to read the story and decide for yourselves on how plausible they are.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 0
greyghost April 15, 2012 at 18:01

I also remember this artcle from Germany.
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/11/10/german-family-minister-slams-feminism/
The germans may be seeing the light on this one.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0
jso April 15, 2012 at 19:12

or it could be that women are just less capable of recognizing genuine risk, and make uninformed choices on a regular basis.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0
Avenger April 15, 2012 at 19:49

Looks like man boob has been reduced to showing videos of his cat riding around on a Roomba lol

http://manboobz.com/2012/04/13/off-topic-one-cat-roomba-three-girl-rhumba/

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 4
Huck Finn April 15, 2012 at 20:17

Western women are conditioned not to be concerned with risk since they are seldom held accountable for their behavior even when their actions harm innocent people. Usually, it is in the realm of nature with mother nature herself who holds women (and all people) fully accountable and makes no distinction.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 0
Eric April 15, 2012 at 21:10

LOL-How many times have we heard feminists over here gloating that more ‘female inclusion’ in the financial system would lead to a ‘more compassionate, less competative business paradigm’. It did exactly what such ‘inclusion’ did for government; turned statesmen into social workers and substituted a welfare state for productive nationalism.

Of course, men weren’t TOTALLY irrelevant; a police state was also necessary to collect taxes and enforce the ‘new paradigm’s’ rules. Of course, these hired gunmen are invariably headed by a ‘progressive female’ police chief or military officer. LOL.

In the business community we see the same. Businesses are doing exactly what most single men have had do under feminist domination: head for China, Latin America, or elsewhere; just to get out from under the ‘compassionate’ harassment suits, higer taxation, so-called socially responsible rules, &c.

The reason why it used to be said that ‘a woman’s place is in the home’ is because a home is what women are best suited for running. Put them in government, business, or the military, and disaster is right around the corner at every turn.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 46 Thumb down 0
Pat April 15, 2012 at 21:34


Not sure what the real idea behind this is. Combat the very real threat of low birth rates or simply companies bowing to pressure for giving even greater economic power to women.

It costs a fair bit of money to train an employee, usually more than 20 weeks of wages. Maternity leave for valuable employees is worth it. (keyword is valuable).

In addition, there is a fair bit of pressure to retain females, since the government has been making noise about forcing quotas in management. If you can keep women managers from quitting, it means you don’t have to go through all the effort of finding a sufficiently competent female to replace her.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9
andybob April 15, 2012 at 21:37

“But not all women were grateful to the men who went down with the ship….The men got to die a quick death while women were left alone and impoverished.”

Just two of the lines in the article Just Some Canadian linked to above. The female journalist, whose sour visage scowls accusingly at us from the bottom of the page, is keen to portray the women survivors as the ‘real victims’ of the Titanic disaster.

It seems that giving up their seats to the entitled Vaginas was an act of insensitive bastardry by men eager to fulfil their patriarchal destinies (as ice cubes?) My favourite part of the article is the fluffy ‘relationship expert’ who breathlessly explains how women can have equality AND enjoy chivalrous pandering. “It doesn’t have to be either/or.” Cunt.

Even the title reminds us that men’s choices should only be referenced in terms of how they impact women. Never endanger your life for a woman – your condecension may offend her. Nowhere in the article is it even suggested that men’s lives are as inherently important as women’s.

Focussing so heavily on what women want and how they feel shows how out of touch journalists like her are with the prevailing mood of men. Many of the men who commented on the article make it clear that, like me, they don’t give a damn what women want or how they feel.

These entitlement princesses are already sunk and they don’t even know it. As for being risk-takers, women love to play fast and loose with other people’s resources. I wouldn’t let them anywhere near my money.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 50 Thumb down 1
Dubcik April 15, 2012 at 21:40

Over 53% of all federal government jobs in Canada are held by women. And yet, every federal job posting has this message to potential applicants…………

“Other Merit Criteria and Conditions of Employment
• Organizational Needs which may apply for this position.
◦Selection may be limited to members of the following Employment Equity groups: Aboriginal persons, visible minorities, persons with disabilities, women”

Open and active discrimination against men, even when the numbers do not warrent it. No wonder so many gov’t departments have become bloated inefficient messes.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 1
Paul Murray April 15, 2012 at 22:02

I don’t understand. Does the study say that women tend to accept riskier investments? Or that a bank with more women is more at-risk of something happening to it?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Paul Murray April 15, 2012 at 22:05

Never mind – followed the link, read the paper, answered my own question.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Paul Murray April 15, 2012 at 22:08

Oh – see page 7. They conclude that the cause of it is that women are just plain not as good at the job *even controlling for age*.

“a detailed exporation suggests that this result reflects that female executives have less expertise on the executive level than their male counterparts”

Gorgeous.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0
Eric April 15, 2012 at 22:11

Dubcik;
Same in the US, last time I checked. They might as well just say ‘No Dogs or White Men Allowed.’

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 0
Tired Guy April 15, 2012 at 22:28

I’ve read through it, even the german part (which was a challenge for my rusty high-school german), and it generally states that women will not risk themselves or anything they own. However, if there is no risk to themselves they will risk everything in massive gambles.

Personally though, you can see this in casinos. Women gambling with their own money tend to be extremely conservative. Give them someone elses money and watch them fritter it away like there is no tomorrow!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0
V10 April 15, 2012 at 22:59

I seem to recall a study not long ago that named alpha males brimming with testosterone and competitive impulses as the primary takers of excessive risks in business…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
Avenger April 16, 2012 at 00:40

Beer makes men smarter.

So say researchers at the University of Illinois in Chicago.

They found that men with a couple beers under their belts were actually better at solving brain-teasers than their sober counterparts.

To reach that surprising conclusion, the researchers devised a bar game in which 40 men were given three words and told to come up with a fourth that fits the pattern.

For example, the word “cheese” could fit with words like “blue” or “cottage” or “Swiss.”

Half the players were given two pints. The other half got nothing.

The result? Those who imbibed solved 40% more of the problems that their sober counterparts.

Also, the drinkers finished their problems in 12 seconds while it took the non-drinkers 15.5 seconds.

“We found at 0.07 blood alcohol, people were worse at working memory tasks, but they were better at creative problem-solving tasks,” psychologist Jennifer Wiley reported on the Federation of Associations in Behavioral and Brain Sciences (FABBS) site.

Wiley conceded that her findings run counter to popular belief that alcohol hinders analytical thinking and muddies the mind.

“We have this assumption, that being able to focus on one part of a problem or having a lot of expertise is better for problem solving,” says Wiley. “But that’s not necessarily true. Innovation may happen when people are not so focused. Sometimes it’s good to be distracted.”

It may also help explain why raving drunks like Ernest Hemingway, John Cheever or Charles Bukowski were able to write their books.

“Sometimes the really creative stuff comes out when you’re having a glass of wine over dinner, or when you’re taking a shower,” Wiley said.

DRINKING IN MODERATION TIP

Researchers also found that men are more likely to solve a problem when working in groups of three rather than two.

“In groups of two, we tend to be more polite, not to confront or ask questions,” Wiley said. “But when you respond to a question in a group of three, you’re not confronting, you’re speaking up for the whole group.”

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/beer-men-smarter-study-article-1.1059752#ixzz1sBjRqCw3

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
Tired Guy April 16, 2012 at 01:30

I think we need to verify these findings Avenger, know any good pubs?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Michael Klein April 16, 2012 at 01:59

There is a growing body of evidence that points to a detrimental effect of mandatory quotas on firms’ performance. The Bundesbank paper is just one that provides evidence of adverse effects that come out of regulation. Another, to my opinion more relevant and more reliable one, has been written by Ahern and Dittmar. They did a thorough job in estimating the effects Norway’s mandatory quota of 40% women on boards had on the firms subjected to this treatment. To all accounts, consequences are serious and detrimental to firm performance: market value took a deep drop, tobin’s q that compares the book value to the market value deteriorated, leverage went down, liabilities up, acquisitions proved to be bad ones – all in all, quality of board decisions got worse, once women came on board. This, has nothing to do with gender, though, but it has a lot to do with experience. And since there aren’t enough women with experience to fill positions in corporate boards around, quotas will have a devastating effect on firm performance. However, politicians aren’t interested in real effects, they only deal in affective ones…

Those who are interested, Ahern and Dittmars study can be found here:
http://webuser.bus.umich.edu/adittmar/NBD.SSRN.2011.05.20.pdf

Those who are able to read German, I wrote about the study here:
http://sciencefiles.org/2012/04/01/die-gesellschaftlichen-kosten-einer-gesetzlichen-frauenquote/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Anonymous April 16, 2012 at 02:03

The “Statistisches Bundesamt” for example writes in it’s statistics, that the difference in average pay between men and women does not mean, that women get less pay for the same work. They know, they also say so, but politicians continue with their ramblings on the “discrimination of women”.

Does any one have a link to this?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Uncle Elmer April 16, 2012 at 07:04

In a similar vein, the AMA is changing the MCAT (Medical College Admission Test) to favor students with broader sociology and psychology backgrounds.

Starting in 2015, the exam will include:

A new “Psychological, Social and Biological Foundations of Behavior” section to test what is typically taught in introductory psychology, sociology and biology courses.

A new “Critical Analysis and Reasoning Skills” section to reasoning ability by having students analyze, evaluate and apply information provided in passages from a range of social sciences and humanities disciplines.

Two natural sciences sections to test concepts typically taught in introductory biology, general and organic chemistry, biochemistry and physics.

No writing sample.

——————————-

And to further help those ladies compete in the patriarchy, fake “Manjaws” :

Want to get ahead at work? Get a chin implant

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
Just Some Canadian April 16, 2012 at 07:55

Board level work is a speciality. It requires not only expert financial skills, legal skills, management skills and strategic thinking. Only a small set of the population really has that ability in addition to being able to out compete your colleagues for those jobs at the top of the pyramid.

The pendulum swings this way and that in society. Why? Because it must as that’s how new ideas come in. We may have swung it too far in one direction and now it’s oscillating back because the “this time is different” thinking gets tired.

The idea that cooperation is good and therefore having people who are less competitive running the economy will also therefore be good and will lead to greater happiness sounds like the reasoning of the underpants gnomes of South Park.

Step 1. Collect underpants.
Step 2: ????
Step 3: Profit!

Cooperation is good. But so is competition. There are times and places for everything. In BoD jobs of large companies, you want people who will push because the rapid cycle of business has left an elephant’s graveyard of office furniture.

Add to that the fact that even if we had unlimited resources, there’s a need for social stratification. That, too, can be the result of competition and cooperation in various measures. However, to say that the secret ingredient to all problems is to “add more women” just seems like magical thinking.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2
Boxer April 16, 2012 at 07:58

Dear JSC/Andybob:

Focussing so heavily on what women want and how they feel shows how out of touch journalists like her are with the prevailing mood of men. Many of the men who commented on the article make it clear that, like me, they don’t give a damn what women want or how they feel.

The comments on this article in the right-wing nat post are hilarious. For example:

I firmly believe that hypocritical women around the world have earned the inalienable right to stand up on the bus while I keep my ass plunked down on my seat. And I am supremely unconcerned with their disapproval of my unchivalrous ways. The only women I will unquestionably rise to give my seat to (and would hope to give my seat for on a lifeboat) are women like my wife, who have never developed those idiotic and irrational expectations of lopsided favour that so many women have.

This is an interesting trend, such clamor in the commons. It didn’t happen five years ago.

Regards, Boxer

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 6
keyster April 16, 2012 at 09:04

“Dubcik;
Same in the US, last time I checked. They might as well just say ‘No Dogs or White Men Allowed.’”

There is NO WHERE in the USA that can be or is said.
What you will see is “We are an Equal Opportunity Employer”, which is code for “No Dogs or White Men Allowed”. Or “bi-lingual preferred”, which is code for “looking for a Hispanic”.

There are two stages of hiring:
1) Get qualified people in to produce (typically white men), and once this is done…
2) Meet EEOC quota for women and minorities

Once Political Correctness takes over, the corporation begins to lose focus and degrade as the only people left are the incompetent but Politically Correct ner-do-wells.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 3
D April 16, 2012 at 09:09

@ Eric

It is always amusing that feminist abhors in inherent differences that men and women have in an attempt to “destroy” sexism and prejudice, citing that the sexes are socially constructed; at the same, will argue that companies will benefit from more women in the field due to the unique perspective and intrinsic hard wiring that can be a benefit from a specific gender , a.k.a “diversity.” Thus, a sexist mode of thought is used throughout.

The contradictions are endless. I noticed that one a long time ago.

Can you spot them all?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 0
keyster April 16, 2012 at 09:21

“Board level work is a speciality. It requires not only expert financial skills, legal skills, management skills and strategic thinking. Only a small set of the population really has that ability in addition to being able to out compete your colleagues for those jobs at the top of the pyramid.”

That’s a myth.
Most boards are comprised of part-time, retired exectives and/or relatives. They have no involment in the day to day operations and rarely have any involvement in strategic decision making. Typically there will be two or three of the largest shareholders represented that may or may not influence executive management.

Boards are there to go along and get along, and are there for any S or C corporation as mostly legal window dressing. The President and CEO, (sometimes founder) places his best friends on the boards, people he knows he can trust and that won’t start any trouble. That’s the key job requirement. That and having a background that looks good in the glossy annual report.

There are exceptions, but most Corporate Boards have very little power and are there for show. They get paid a dollar a year and a bunch of stock options to show up for the quarterly/annual meeting. It’s all a facade meant for people to believe board members are powerful decision makers.

Trust me on this, I worked for several Fortune 500 companies and had to present to and meet with their board of directors. These people are powerless plants.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3
Towgunner April 16, 2012 at 10:23

women being more risk adverse then men? No no, this is off from the start, it’s like this – men are better at accessing risk then women and therefore take more risks. women appear to be risk adverse because they’re weaker on many levels, for instance, they’re herd creatures because the herd provides safety. For this and many other reasons, women are not well suited for rugged individualism or striking out on their own. Thanks to feminism women have been given a free pass on everything reference the idiotic catchesm “you can have it all”…meanwhile all their doing is using the state to protect, act as the surrogate husband and pass any laws that guarantee their success. Under such conditions anyone would feel “empowered” to take risks. So, what do we see with all this new wealth? We see excessive and reckless use of risk. But it’s how they deploy their capital that illustrates their relationship with risk…er reckless deployment of capital that is. women are by far the most addicted to consuming useless items versus men. Whatever “power” “career” she bambazzolled her way into…that pay goes to useless vanity items. In many ways, it’s her need for attention and acceptance into the herd drives the make-up, tanning, Curves memberships (don’t forget about the lulemon and accessories like gloves, which she’ll use maybe once), impulsive shopping sprees, tapas bars, cosmos, many and petti at the spa…etc etc. Risk in financial terms starts with the protection of one’s assets and goes up from there – the greater the risk of absolute loss the more payout. women just don’t really translate to this concept, whatever money they have they spend for the moment, because “if it feels good do it” and, of course, “you deserve it”. Never mind taking on risk from an investment context, they’re willing to spend all of their money and borrow even more to fulfill and immediate “need” (usually emotional based) on products that have negligible return on investment. A facial will not appreciate in value over time. We are now, once again, at near negative savings rates. Its not like she’s typically looking at a $30,000 bonus from goldman sachs and saying where do I put this to grow and create wealth…its more like she wants to take a vacation like the girls on sex and the city. The fact that she has now obliterated all potential upside and downside never enters the decision process..in fairness there is no risk to analyze there is just a flat-out dead loss of future wealth squandered for the here and now. See any similarities to how the country is being run?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2
Towgunner April 16, 2012 at 10:26

@ Eric:

The reason why it used to be said that ‘a woman’s place is in the home’ is because a home is what women are best suited for running. Put them in government, business, or the military, and disaster is right around the corner at every turn.

As a Marine Officer, I can say emphatically that you are spot on with this.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 2
Uncle Elmer April 16, 2012 at 10:30

Enjoying Career Success? It’s Probably Because You Couldn’t Land A Man

New study shows :

Although the ratio of males to females in a population is known to influence behavior in nonhuman animals, little is known about how sex ratio influences human behavior. We propose that sex ratio affects women’s family planning and career choices. Using both historical data and experiments, we examined how sex ratio influences women’s career aspirations. Findings showed that a scarcity of men led women
to seek high-paying careers and to delay starting a family. This effect was driven by how sex ratio altered the mating market, not just the job market. Sex ratios involving a scarcity of men led women to seek lucrative careers because of the difficulty women have in finding an investing, long-term mate under such circumstances. Accordingly, this low-male sex ratio produced the strongest desire for lucrative careers in women who are least able to secure a mate. These findings demonstrate that sex ratio has far-reaching effects in humans, including whether women choose briefcase over baby.

elmer deconstructed this a long time ago :

Is because a man wants a wife, not a co-worker :

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/02/20/a-man-wants-a-wife-not-a-co-worker

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
suspectum April 16, 2012 at 11:01

This might be a bit off-topic but the article reminds me of a few anecdotes about anglo females I have collected. I am from Europe but have lived and dated in the Anglosphere for 10 years now. As an outsider the basic “characteristics” of Anglo women have become very clear to me. If anyone is interested I wouldn’t mind writing them up as a cohesive “ethnographer’s guide to the North American female”. The chapters would be along the lines of “engagement ring – why pay for the promise to be enslaved?”, “Women and cleanliness – why modern females’ houses are dirtier than any mancave”, “I am a professional! – the make-work world of equity committees and anti-rape managers”. Let me know if there is interest and how to submit it here.
Thanks, and keep up the good work, spearhead!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0
Just Some Canadian April 16, 2012 at 12:35

>>“Board level work is a speciality.

Keyster
>That’s a myth.

My experience is in getting companies past the entrepreneur stage. Step number one is to bring in competent board members rather than relatives and buddies. The trick is to get them to cash out because the entrepreneurs may be great for a stage in the company’s lifecycle, but typically their ability to manage their once entrepreneurial firms gets bypassed.

For Fortune 500, I bow to your superior knowledge, sir!. (Truth be told, given the state of economy, you’re doubtless right.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Boxer April 16, 2012 at 13:21

Dear Suspectum:

Women and cleanliness – why modern females’ houses are dirtier than any mancave

Offtopic, and speaking in broad generalities, but double thumbs up on this.

While there are a small number of women who are moderately neat, most are abject pigs and their homes reflect this. It’s interesting to note that the worst offenders are the most successful women. Date an attorney or an accountant with a high salary and see what her home looks like. Many of these will keep a very clean hallway and living area, and the spare bedrooms and office will be overflowing with books, papers, loose DVDs, dirty clothes, and lumps of catshit tracked up from wherever the overflowing litter box is. As a whole, most women are bloody disgusting.

Of course, some of my bros are pigs too, but in my experience it’s a very small margin.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 6
keyster April 16, 2012 at 13:39

“Step number one is to bring in competent board members rather than relatives and buddies.”

ie – The key investors, typically some lacky from a venture capital firm.

Again, board members rarely take an active role in management, hence their pay in stock rather than salary. The Founder, CEO and President will want loyal board members he can trust above all else. Basically sychophants that will agree with whatever he says to do. It’s an illusion that boards have power, that there’s a check and balance system in Encorpera. Their job is to arrive at the quarterly meeting and vote however the CEO or largest shareholder on the board wants them to. These power structures vary, but that’s the typical scenerio. It’s very political. If there are women on a board it’s likely for EEOC purposes. She’ll have no power to do anything, but will keep her mouth shut because her options might be worth something in a few years.

@Elmer
Enjoying Career Success? It’s Probably Because You Couldn’t Land A Man

That’s a Spearhead article in and of itself.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
keyster April 16, 2012 at 13:44

Sorry.
Entire study here:

http://business.utsa.edu/faculty/kdurante/files/1SexRatio_WomensCareers.pdf

This is MRA/Anti-Feminist crack!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Prof. Woland April 16, 2012 at 13:45

Rather than reserving a certain number of director seats on a board or slots (quotas) for senior management positions in large established publicly run monopolies that cannot fail they should be reserving work for female entrepeneuers. The women can risk their own time, money, and lost opportunities to start businesses from scratch and if they succeed they can share their wealth with men. Who can argue with that? More women business owners, more tax money, more jobs for men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
suspectum April 16, 2012 at 13:52

Boxer,
exactly my experience. There is also a strong disconnect between “inside world” and “outside world”. None of my past dates would have left the house without clean designer clothes, handbag and make-up, projecting a “well-maintained” appearance when leaving the house. However, their rooms and or houses always had dust bunnies, disgustingly dirty kitchens, piles of clothes and -worst of all- completely disgusting bathrooms. This, to me, fits into the picture of the “calculated pretender” who acts one way to the outside world, yet has very little in terms of substance and or principles inwardly. In my field (law and city planning) this becomes apparent when a lot of the females have advanced degrees and certificates, yet do not even understand the basic process of code-conformin design and or ordinance analysis… all fluff, little substance.
Of course, my observations are purely anecdotal and generalized. I draw them from the 20 to 25 women I have had the pleasure of dating and getting close enough with to have seen past the outer shell. They were all remarkably similar. Whether this is selection bias (I date a certain “type” etc.) or more systemic is for you to decide…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Raj April 16, 2012 at 14:16

OT : Rapist quotes (Scroll down)

http://projectunbreakable.tumblr.com/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3
Ted April 16, 2012 at 15:55

“The Founder, CEO and President will want loyal board members he can trust above all else. Basically sychophants that will agree with whatever he says to do. ”

Yep.

” If there are women on a board it’s likely for EEOC purposes. She’ll have no power to do anything, but will keep her mouth shut…”

You’re saying she will rubberstamp the Man’s decisions like the rest of them. Sounds likely to me… but that would mean there should be no effect at all when more women go on boards. But, according to the Bundesbank paper, things get worse. So I wonder whether the ladies are pushing their barrow in some subtle female way, undetectable to us knuckle draggers.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Avenger April 16, 2012 at 16:02

@Elmer
“In a similar vein, the AMA is changing the MCAT (Medical College Admission Test) to favor students with broader sociology and psychology backgrounds”

It doesn’t surpriuse me but being admitted and being able to stay the course are two different things. It’s like the top Unis looking to recruit Black students. Now, many of these good Black students would do very well in an average Uni but when you put them in with the creme de la creme at Harvard, Yale, MIT etc. there is a large dropout rate.
btw, most doctors today are not members of the AMA and I’d guess it’s like a 1/3 or less and I wouldn’t be surprised if 1/2 of those were just med students or residents. So the AMA really doesn’t represent the average doctor.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Antifeminist One April 16, 2012 at 16:19

@Elmer

Findings showed that a scarcity of men led women
to seek high-paying careers and to delay starting a family.

I wonder if that’s the effect of a power/masculinity vacuum. And if so, what the implications of that could be.

Or god forbid, what the effect of a femininity vacuum could result in.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
SOS April 16, 2012 at 17:27

suspectum,

Do it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Attila April 16, 2012 at 17:44

Women don’t care if somebody ELSE takes the risk – especially if there is some payoff for them.

It’s all about them (TM).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
Rob April 16, 2012 at 21:24

@ Boxer,

What the hell are you doing over here?

You haven’t finished your argument with me yet.

You keep starting them, now I demand you finish it to its conclusion.

Stop being a chicken dick and running away with your skirt tucked between your legs.

Let your balls descend and let’s rock.

I’m not gonna let you go.

And if Welmer bans me for it, I will start using my highly trafficked blog to attack you publicly, like you did to Keyster with your macaroni, glitter and construction paper excuse of a blog which you run.

Finish what you started, chicken dick.

I’m not going to ever let you run away until we resolve this.

Is Trotsky a Marxist?

Yes or No?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 8
Boxer April 16, 2012 at 21:25

Dear Raj:

OT : Rapist quotes (Scroll down)

Yeah, women don’t rape, right?

Thanks for the link. Quite the eye opener.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5
Rob April 16, 2012 at 21:36

Answer the question, Boxer, or shut up and go home.

We don’t have to have this argument with you week after week.

Let’s end it here and now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8
Rob April 16, 2012 at 22:37

Stop running away, Boxer.

I’ve offered you TWO olive branches, which you’ve refused flat out.

Now you’ve started another fight with me, and dammit man, like men we are going to bring this to a conclusion, even if I have to force it out of you by dragging you around by the scruff of your weasely neck.

Answer the damn question, you dissimulative feminized unqualified penis owner.

You are apparently better read, better educated, and by your own boastfulness, have a much larger penis than me.

Fair enough. I’ll take your subjective word on it.

But let’s finish this argument, once and for all.

Is Trotsky a Marxist?

YES

or

NO

(See how I used bold there? I know it pisses you off).

Answer the fucking question, and stop running away!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8
Rob April 17, 2012 at 00:00

It’s just remarkable, for someone to claim they’ve studied Trotsky and his relation to neo-cons, for a DECADE, who cannot still answer if Trotsky is a Marxist or not,

Un.

F*cking.

Believable.

Yet anyone who mentions feminism is related to Marxism, gets immediately written off as a kook, by Cockser. Followed by rant after crazy rant.

What.

A.

Liar.

What are you really here for, Boxer?

You can’t, and won’t even attempt to, back up your entire premise except with “I have an education.”

What a fucking clown.

Answer the damn question, chicken dick.

Even if his Trotsky claim was true, (which it isn’t), he should still be focused on Marxism – but he does his utmost to lead people away from its logical conclusion.

Tell us again why the USA must be destroyed, traitor.

Was Trotsky a Marxist?

Yes or No.

It’s pretty friggin easy speazie.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 8
Ode April 17, 2012 at 00:33

Eric

LOL-How many times have we heard feminists over here gloating that more ‘female inclusion’ in the financial system would lead to a ‘more compassionate, less competative business paradigm’. It did exactly what such ‘inclusion’ did for government; turned statesmen into social workers and substituted a welfare state for productive nationalism.

Back in the days when it was men who ran society banks had clear rules for anybody who wanted a home mortgage.
no “ninja” loans
no income, no job, no assets = no loan
Basically you had to prove yourself to be responsible. (makes a lot of sense if you ask me)

However, Feminists thought that requiring people to be responsible was incompassionate because naturally it meant excluding 1 out of every 3 people. Feminists wanted to create a world of “equality” where everybody was given a home loan and well we all know how the story ends there.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Eric April 17, 2012 at 01:10

Attilla:
‘Women don’t care who takes the risk as long as there’s some payoff for them.’
LOL—how many examples could we find of women who chase the white-collar ‘bad boys’? Every swindling, crooked businessman, grafting politician, or shady lawyer I know of has a stand-by-her-man wife and kids who are conmen in embryo! Invariably, too, these wives know about their spouse’s double-dealings but, just like their sisters who choose their thugs from the gutter, they don’t mind if the man takes a fall, so long as they come out of it unscathed. ‘I’ll have none of his theiving ways, but I’ll go him halves’ ought to be their motto.

But at least the first type is somewhat smarter than the latter; because the first type of female actually profits from the arrangement. All the second kind gets is an ego-boost when she has to cough up for bail bonds and court costs.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Eric April 17, 2012 at 01:17

Ode,
Yes, and we’re all well aware of how much women value things like personal responsibility! I think that they can relate well to people who are incompetent, dysfunctional, or want handouts. In a lot of ways, they give loans just like they give sex—the least deserving are the ones entitled to it; and their ideas of equality are reflected in the fact that most of them are sluts and are indifferent to their choice of partners.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Rob April 17, 2012 at 02:47

Rob/Rob Fedders/Fedrz, and JEB is back – in black.

You should pick your fights more carefully, you academic nerd.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7
Rob April 17, 2012 at 03:44

You know, I only want ONE answer from Boxer.

Was Trotsky a Marxist?

Yes

or

No.

It can’t be THAT hard for a self-proclaimed ten yeasr student on the subject, CAN IT?

I mean, does he need FURTHER educatiion to answer that simple question?

If so, let’s END all funding for Canadian educctaion immediatly.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8
Boxer April 17, 2012 at 07:34

Dear Rob/Jeb/Migu/other socks:

How much money do you think you’ve cost the spearhead dot com, considering you guys showed up during *spring donation month* and made a big show of outing my real name and calling my employer for being pro-male and indulging in discussions here?

A rhetorical question, which ought to be pondered by everyone who is enjoying your kookfest.

Regards, Boxer

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4
Rob April 17, 2012 at 10:22

I’ve never donated any money to the Spearhead, nor to any other MRM affiliated site. It is against my MGTOW principles. I don’t like the idea, which is why I’ve never asked for a penny for myself, despite years of work – for several of those years, it was as a fulltime job.

But, ask Welmer how many men showed up here to read the comments when Zed and I were working each-other’s comments to make these threads worthwhile to read, and to give the Spearhead legitimacy. The two of us helped build the Spearhead with our names. I’ve put my considerable MRA name behind the Spearhead – that is my contribution to Welmer. We used to be one hell of a good team, me and Zed. And I’ve still got all of his stuff, whether he’s here or not.

Shut up Boxer.

I’ve contributed to the MRM more than any other man aside from Zed, who comes ’round these parts. It would have been nice if AH would have stuck around, cause he was here too – but was ultimately run off by someone like you, around to only be a dickhead.

Even without money, Welmer knows I’ve contributed heavily to his site. There are even articles here of mine attributed only to “anonymous.”

I suppose I should call him W.F. Price instead of Welmer, but that’s who he is to me.

Now that you donate money, Welmer has a “customer” and feels obligated to “please you.” A concept I hate, because I love the Truth more than anything else. Money leads one away from the Truth. But, I know Welmer needs an income, so, I’ll let it slide. Btw, I’ve also recently proposed a way that Welmer might be able to garner some income from my work, without me taking any profit.

Now, Boxer.

Is Trotsky a Marxist?

Yes

or

No.

Why can’t you answer this question?

Run to the U of Wikipedia, it’s where you get the rest of your info.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
Rob April 17, 2012 at 10:30

You don’t “indulge” in discussions when you purpoosefully spread Disinformation, asshole.

Zed know about Marxism too.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3
Rob April 17, 2012 at 10:53

What you do, Boxer – and what makes me so angry with you – is that you really contribute nothing.

You are one of those guys who is wet behind the ears, doesn’t know anything worthwhile to contribute, and so you find someone who does know something, and attempt to build status by climbing up on their backs and merely attacking them, over and over again. That is how dipshits with nothing real to say build their status in the MRM.

Why don’t you use your vast education to be a creator, instead of a looter?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Rob April 17, 2012 at 11:40

Furthermore, Cockser

You use your kindergarten macaroni/glitter/construction paper blog to undermine other men in the manosphere, with bullshit attacks like this.

You’ve opened up a huge door there that you should have kept shut. After posting one article a week for only a month, I am already batting around 1,000 hits a day. That’s with no comments bringing in repeat visitors.

Do you wanna keep undermining me and then find out what it’s like when a real asshole pulls the same stunt on you?

Prick.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3
Eximio April 18, 2012 at 11:56

This is interesting. There are probably not many researchers will to take the risk, but I would not be at all surprised if there were a strong correlation between the number of women in senior management and on the Board’s of companies and the financial performance of those companies.

I agree with Gunn above that it is quite likely that companies that are already successful can afford to waste some money by putting women on the Board. In fact, it’s almost guaranteed that this is what happens. Men build great companies, and once those companies become large and profitable, they become more visible and high-profile. That’s when the chattering classes start attacking them on politically correct grounds. Which in turn results in them putting women in senior management positions and on the Board. I suppose the men that built those companies – when they are honest with themselves – view the expense of those women as simply a cost of doing business. Perhaps they also view the resulting declining stock price as a necessary cost as well.

Look at how Carly Fiorina ruined HP.

Which makes me think there is an opportunity here. One could create a investment portfolio that is entirely objective. Simply buy long in the one company in each industry that has the greatest proportion of men in senior management and Board positions. And short the company in each industry that has highest number of women in senior management and Board positions.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Poiuyt April 19, 2012 at 01:44

Many men, especially white knights and also feminists, seek to force the idea of womanism down everybodys throats, whatever the repercussions.

You see this forced womanism in the professions, in the vocations, in the arts, in government, in medicine, engineering and in society at large.

The thing is, there is no acceptance by these people doing the genderist politiking, of just how unsuited some of the women being unduely promoted are, for the particular task. Instead of admitting this truth, they overkill it by hard-peddling confusion, victimology, obfuscation and projection.

Soo many lives and much existing good is being destroyed, damaged or totally messed up, because of this genderist ideologys’ asserting “anything he can do, she can do better”.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17733798

“””Great Ormond Street Hospital ‘victimising concerned staff’

Great Ormond Street Hospital is facing accusations that it is downgrading child protection work and “victimising” staff who raise concerns.

Doctors claim the hospital has ignored warnings about the reduction in its specialist expertise in diagnosing abuse.

According to the former head of its radiology department, its withdrawal of services since the death of Baby Peter is putting children’s safety at risk.

And a senior Conservative MP has also criticised the hospital over its treatment of another consultant, who was accused of falsifying expenses.

Former head of radiology Professor Christine Hall says the hospital has withdrawn from vital child protection work since the Peter Connelly – Baby P – case.

Radiologists at Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) were relied upon to give their expert opinion on child abuse cases to doctors around the country.

From X-rays, they made judgements on whether injuries could be accidental or not. But they are now turning away requests for second opinions.

Professor Hall says she was referred scores of cases each year, many complex and time-consuming, which often involved preparation of reports for court cases.

She said: “Other people might be tempted to improve what we’re doing, but it seems the opposite case here. They just wanted to withdraw from anything to do with child abuse.

Peter Connelly’s mother, her boyfriend and his brother were convicted of causing his death in 2008 “I found this quite horrifying. It was an impossible situation to be in and whoever had dreamt this up obviously had no idea what it involved.

“The consultants were told they could no longer accept referrals of possible child abuse cases. I was shocked. This was the whole reason for Great Ormond Street existing, to help with difficult cases and to provide opinions for court appearances and things like that.”

She claims concerns raised by staff about downgrading the service have not been treated appropriately.

“I think complaints are not listened to, not taken seriously, ignored, and often the person doing the complaining had been victimised.”

Great Ormond Street say it had become “custom and practice” for Professor Hall to see cases referred by other hospitals, but this was stopped after she left in 2006, before Baby Peter died.

In a statement, they said: “Following her retirement, the radiology team decided, with management support, to stop accepting external requests for ‘radiology only’ second opinions because the hospital does not have an A&E and therefore, in the department’s view, it was not an appropriate focus for the radiology department.

“Child protection work is a core part of the role of all paediatric radiologists, and GOSH is no exception.”

Further concerns have been raised about the reduction of specialist work in the radiology department.

Karen Rosendahl was one of a three-member team, specialising in multi-skeletal (MSK) radiology. Since she left two years ago there have been no MSK specialists and the work is done by radiologists with general skills. She claims it has led to recent misdiagnosis of children.

“I have concerns about children’s safety. One particular case was misdiagnosed and had the wrong sort of treatment. Another case was misdiagnosed as abuse when it wasn’t abuse”.

Great Ormond Street rejects this. It said: “Any concern raised by staff at Great Ormond Street is taken very seriously. We encourage staff to raise concerns.

Lib Dem minister Lynne Featherstone claimed there had been a “cover-up” “On investigation we have found no evidence of any risk to patient safety.”

At the time of Peter Connelly’s death in August 2007, Great Ormond Street was responsible for child protection in Haringey, and recruited the locum, Dr Sabah Al-Zayyat, who examined the toddler two days before he died.

Last year Home Office Minister Lynne Featherstone claimed there had been a “cover-up” after it emerged the hospital withheld details of its failings from the original enquiry.

Criticisms were contained in a confidential report into Dr Al-Zayyat and the St Ann’s clinic where she worked, but a number were not passed on to the serious case review.

The Sibert report – as it became known – revealed a shortage of staff, lack of nursing support and poor access to medical records. Consultants at the clinic had warned about the same problems a year before.

A BBC documentary reveals key failings – identified by Sibert – also didn’t appear in a second serious case review. And the hospital pressurised the health regulator not to make criticisms in the Sibert report public.

Social care expert Professor Ray Jones said: “If at any point in time there’s been deliberate editing and exclusion to make sure that information doesn’t transfer from one stage of the process to another then that has got to be a cause of concern because you have disrupted and destroyed the purpose of the process.”

Acrimonious dispute

Great Ormond Street says it withheld information from the first serious case review for legal reasons and to preserve confidentiality but gave the full unredacted Sibert report to the second serious case review.

Details have also emerged of an acrimonious four-year dispute involving another senior radiologist and Great Ormond Street.

Dr Cathy Owens faced an allegation of fraud in 2008 over her claims for reimbursement of the congestion charge. She was made to pay back the money but

Great Ormond Street chose not to take disciplinary action at the time.

In 2010 she lodged a grievance about her treatment by the hospital. A few weeks later she was reported to the General Medical Council (GMC) by some of her own colleagues, including her line manager. They resurrected the previous investigation into her expenses as a basis for their referral.

Conservative MP Sir Peter Bottomley says the GMC should not have been involved, and has criticised the hospital for allowing it.

He said: “As soon as the hospital knew that there had been a referral of Dr Owens, it should have intervened and said this is a dead issue.

“Whatever the rights and wrongs may have been just over two years ago, it’s not a matter to bring up in public now, it clearly doesn’t affect a doctor’s fitness to practice, it’s been disposed of.”

‘Pure victimisation’

The GMC has now dropped the case, saying there was no prospect of proving dishonesty, and questioned why it was “silent for well over two years” before a formal complaint was made.

Professor Hall claims Dr Owens was targeted unfairly.

She said: “I think this is pure victimisation of Cathy Owens. My view is that they are trying to persuade her by one means or another to resign.”

Great Ormond Street said it did not take disciplinary action against Dr Owens initially because it wanted to avoid further disruption in the radiology department. It says it was obliged to pass all information on to the GMC, after her referral.

“We were bound to ensure that the General Medical Council received a clear, transparent and accurate account of all the key evidence.”””

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
BHP April 19, 2012 at 08:41

Is Trotsky a Marxist?

I believe Trotsky was a Trotskyite. There were several ideological differences between Trotsky and Marx, notably Trotsky was writing after Marx, so yes, in that he’s a Marxist but he was born in 1879, several years after Marx was dead.

I’m no expert, but 20 years in politics is a long time. So, yes he was a Marxist but decades later and in another country. Just like Regan would be considered a Loony Leftist by the GOP today, things change.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: