COMMENTS: 162
Was the Economic Meltdown a Crisis of Masculinity Run Amuck? It's Time for Women to Step In
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Reproductive Justice headlines via email.
Everywhere you look these days, someone is making a case for why the latest economic shake up could be a tremendous gift in the long run. No one is pushing that point of view more enthusiastically than feminists, who see a great opportunity for gender equality in these uncertain economic times. The big boys have been humbled and the women emboldened by the financial meltdown. In fact, a new report by the National Council for Research on Women argues that the economic crisis was caused by a perfect storm of things, but was in part, a result of masculinity run amuck.
As controversial as this claim sounds, it’s been made in the most mainstream of places -- including in the New York Times, where Nicholas Kristof wondered if we might all be better off if it were “Lehman Brothers and Sisters.” Barnard College president Deborah Spar even went so far as to call it a “one gender crash” in the Washington Post.
The report, titled Women in Fund Management: A Road Map for Achieving Critical Mass -- and Why it Matters, aggregates research on gender differences in investment style and makes the business case for diversifying women's presence at the top echelons of the financial sector. It cites multiple studies that conclude that women -- on the whole -- tend to make less risky, rash financial decisions. According to a 2005 study from the Center for Financial Research at the University of Cologne, for example, "women managers tended to take less risk and to follow less extreme investment styles (which are more stable over time), while male managers had a more active style, with higher turnover ratios than female mangers." And in another study, this one by the International Journal of Bank Marketing, "women process investment-related information more comprehensively than men in the same context."
These kinds of findings, and the policy extrapolated from them, make some feminists nervous. Miriam Zoila Perez, blogger and feminist activist, explains: "It's a slippery slope between noting trends along gender lines and making claims about how women's biology influences the way they make decisions. In reality, there is probably just as much variation within the gender categories as between them. Any statistical difference should be equated with society, not biology, and that isn't always distinguished in these kinds of reports."
The Council's report doesn't speculate on biological versus social sources for the gender differences in investment styles, nor does it assert that that risk-averse leadership is inherently good. Spar explains, "Women make financial decision differently than men do. They don't make them better. They don't make them worse. They make them differently."
And Maria Chrin, a Founder and Managing Partner of Circle Financial Group, explains: "What we have found is that the talent that women bring to the table is complimentary to a portfolio where there are already mangers who are willing to take a lot of risks." Those risk-taking managers, she attests after 20 years of experience interviewing the best and the brightest in the financial sector, tend to be men.
Stay up to date with the latest Reproductive Justice headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DonaldA on Jun 27, 2009 1:11 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: nonsense
Posted by: Robin Leslie
» RE: nonsense
Posted by: countingdaisies
Comments are closed-
Posted by: billslm on Jun 27, 2009 1:47 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So it doesn't matter whether male or female. Feminism is nothing more than The Big Nag, anyway. Just one more instance of women nagging men.
Trouble is that apparently, women expect the men to actively bring them in. And they nag men when they don't.
Men don't even bring each other in. Men on Wall Street are killers. Women say they want equality. But really they want whatever men have. So they want to be killers. Let them kill their own humanity. Fine with me.
The first time I went out to dinner with the woman who is now my wife, I ordered dessert for myself and my future wife turned to the wait person. "Oh," she said, "I'll just have some of his."
Right there, I got a huge insight into the nature of women and what feminism is about.
I don't know how other men feel about such things but I won't have it. "No, ma'am," I said. "You won't have any of mine at all. Not now. Not ever. So you had better order your own."
She got the picture.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: What Women Want
Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: What SOME Women Want
Posted by: Amy27605
» RE: What Women Want
Posted by: ender
» RE: What Women Want
Posted by: Sympa
» I just got a huge insight into the nature of a certain class of men and what they're about
Posted by: Beck
» RE: I just got a huge insight into the nature of a certain class of men and what they're about
Posted by: Amy27605
» RE: I just got a huge insight into the nature of a certain class of men and what they're about
Posted by: hagwind
» RE: What Women Want
Posted by: joycehays@gmail.com
» RE: What Women Want
Posted by: hagwind
» Whew!
Posted by: morticia
» RE: Whew!
Posted by: morticia
» RE: Whew!
Posted by: billslm
» RE: Whew!
Posted by: morticia
» RE: What Women Want
Posted by: Spot
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ender on Jun 27, 2009 4:03 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
See anyone in their 30's in handcuffs like in the late 1980s?
No you haven't: we as a generation have been denied access to the upper echelons of corporate hierarchy necessary to be in a position to perpetrate massive wholesale fraud, by the very same baby boomers who refuse to - and now because of their own shenanigans can't afford to - retire.
I fully support equal rights for everyone, and I am truly amazed/disgusted that women STILL only get paid 80% for what a man does for the same work (and Jesus H. Christ, are we STILL debating whether or not homosexuals are human beings? Really?)
However, this recent economic downturn has been hardest on men; I guess it's the abhorrent 20% "vagina discount" on pay that makes female employees so attractive to corporate America. No wonder the Repugnicans fought so hard against the fair pay act: it'd increase corporate payrolls overnight.
So let's not forget who the real enemy is: the older generation who refuses move out of the driver's seat, because it sure as hell ain't my fellow genxers that are keeping women down.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Baby boomers v. Genxers
Posted by: hilaryuk
» RE: Baby boomers v. Genxers
Posted by: ender
» RE: Baby boomers v. Genxers (Oh, Give Me a Break!)
Posted by: Jayzer
» RE: Baby boomers v. Genxers (Oh, Give Me a Break!)
Posted by: wbblack
» The baby boomers doth protest too much
Posted by: ender
» RE: Baby boomers v. Genxers (Oh, Give Me a Break!)
Posted by: Spot
» RE: Baby boomers v. Genxers (Oh, Give Me a Break!)
Posted by: ender
» RE: Baby boomers v. Genxers
Posted by: ender
» RE: Baby boomers v. Genxers
Posted by: hagwind
» RE: Baby boomers v. Genxers
Posted by: ender
» RE: Baby boomers v. Genxers
Posted by: hilaryuk
» RE: Baby boomers v. Genxers
Posted by: Kathy-B
» RE: Baby boomers v. Genxers
Posted by: ender
» RE: Baby boomers v. Genxers
Posted by: victoriahokulani
» RE: Baby boomers v. Genxers
Posted by: ender
» RE: Baby boomers v. Genxers This just isn't true. Sorry.
Posted by: greentime
» RE: Baby boomers v. Genxers This just isn't true. Sorry.
Posted by: ender
» RE: Baby boomers v. Genxers This just isn't true. Sorry.
Posted by: ender
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bonapartist on Jun 27, 2009 4:19 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the same vein I want to see the bastards who caused it at the gallows. Be it women, men, aliens, green ducks with laser beams on their heads.
I am unlikely to get either wish but it changes nothing, it is not about gender. It is about top 10%, primarly in US, ripping off the rest of the world. Until that oligarhy is gone, or at least weakened, there cannot be any changes or advances.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Non issue
Posted by: Spot
» RE: Be it women, men, aliens, green ducks with laser beams on their heads.
Posted by: greentime
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Jun 27, 2009 4:33 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In my experience, and as the article suggests at certain points, diversity tends to have a positive, neutralizing effect on the work environment. But the high risk/reward financial business attracts, breeds, and/or grooms a certain kind of person and behavior, regardless of gender.
The only difference might be that when they run off with their investors' life savings, they'll piss it away on shoes and spa vacations instead of hookers and private jets.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ted Voth Jr on Jun 27, 2009 4:44 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But… one of the great arguments for women's suffrage was that after women got the vote, there'd be no more corrupt, stupid, vicious politics– and thus, for instance, no more wars.
What happened? I'd love to believe the premise of this article, but experience has shown that premise to be wrong. Sorry, truly sorry…
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: One Argument for Women's Suffrage…
Posted by: hagwind
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MicroGlyphics on Jun 27, 2009 5:19 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Assessment Is Only Partially Correct
Posted by: hagwind
» RE: Assessment Is Only Partially Correct
Posted by: hilaryuk
» ITS THE SOCIALISM... AGAIN
Posted by: reelman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Jun 27, 2009 5:46 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» So true Jen. I was thinking about Carly Fiorina myself when reading this article.
Posted by: Quist
» Wow...I got a 1 rating just for agreeing with Jen. I must have pissed off some troll.
Posted by: Quist
» RE: So true Jen. I was thinking about Carly Fiorina myself when reading this article.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» RE: So true Jen. I was thinking about Carly Fiorina myself when reading this article.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sausage on Jun 27, 2009 6:10 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes.
Whether or not it is an observable psychological fact that women would make less risky investments than men, the end result would still be the same. Why?
Because they all, men and women Wall Streeters, went to the same schools. They all work for the same bosses, financial companies on the way up and so on and so forth.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» And they both count using the same ten fingers
Posted by: grindermonkey
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rafaeltoral on Jun 27, 2009 6:27 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Sexism
Posted by: velvet acid christ
» RE: Sexism
Posted by: Spot
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Robin Leslie on Jun 27, 2009 6:34 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
free market fundamentalism. At last men too can free themselves from the idiotic Machievellian enterprise of power per se, and be 'a man for others' in the manner of Jesus Christ, who understood and loved women for themselves and not for what they have. Women are different, though they share the same humanity as men, they are complimentary to men and vice versa, 'gifts' to each other to be hallowed and treasured. What we so sorely need today is a politico-economic apparatus that reflects this!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: LeonBNJ on Jun 27, 2009 6:41 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Women can't break the ceilings
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» The gatekeepers hold the keys
Posted by: Spot
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MyLeftFoot on Jun 27, 2009 6:52 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Just another button pushing article...
Posted by: Zeugitai
» RE: Just another button pushing article...
Posted by: MyLeftFoot
» RE: Just another button pushing article...
Posted by: Spot
» RE: Just another button pushing article...
Posted by: Spot
Comments are closed-
Posted by: IRIQUOIS227 on Jun 27, 2009 7:17 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: zooeyhall on Jun 27, 2009 7:53 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know plenty of women who are in business and finance and who strongly support a lassaiz-faire capitalism and a ruthless economic and social Darwinism. Fanatical Bush and Reagan supporters. And on the "flip" side of the coin--if you can call it that---there are plenty of female "Clintonistas" who strongly support the Blue Dog type of capitalism that the Clintons gave us. Many of them were strong supporters of Hillary and are still vehemently as anti-Obama as any Republican.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JohnTruth2001 on Jun 27, 2009 8:12 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are indeed such things as conspiracies, and this is one of them!!! If Nazis could gas innocent men, women, and children, then this could well happen to:
The implosion of the world's economy is being orchestrated by our private Federal Reserve & the other private central banks!!! It's a scheme of the Illuminati/NWO/globalists to destroy U.S. sovereignty & usher in a one-world dictatorship!
The Elites/Illuminati/NWO/globalists are sick eugenicists who want a herd of merely 500 million sheeple in the entire world, under their control, to serve them under a feudalistic system!
http://www.endthefed.us/
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: edgar_michel on Jun 27, 2009 8:16 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is true that, in the United States because of our Protestant origins, women have taken the back seat and their voices muted. But to suggest that Kacki Zehner would be any better than Henry Paulsen or Lloyd Blankfein at steering world investments hardly scratches the surface of identifying the problems beset by the United States.
In all things, a man-women partnership brings to the table the best talents of both of them because both have different hardwired perceptions with regard to preserving the family unit, of which a financial organization can viewed as an abstraction. But the problem isn’t who is at the helm of Goldman Sachs, it is the existence of Goldman Sachs itself.
Consider this excerpt taken form Wikipedia:
“ The Federal Reserve's approval of their (Goldman Sachs) bid to become banks ended the ascendancy of the securities firms, 75 years after Congress separated them from deposit-taking lenders, and capped weeks of chaos that sent Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. into bankruptcy and led to the rushed sale of Merrill Lynch & Co. to Bank of America Corp.” I think that this excerpt correctly identifies the problem behind the financial meltdown. It isn’t just problems in the financial sector and it isn’t problems caused by a male dominated financial sector, though I feel that the melding of male and female minds always produces the better result, but it is systemic failure at all levels of government to stem consolidation of power into the hands of the very few.
If you want to know courageous women stepping up to the plate where men have fallen down then you should know the names of Mindy Kleinberg, Lorie Van Auken, Patty Casazza, Monica Gabriella, Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, Col. Ann Wright, and many many others. The first four in this group were some of the founders of the Family Steering Committee for the Investigation of 9/11. Why don’t we, when talking about women stepping up to the plate of leadership, mention these women, because after all they are some of the most courageous in our society. Why instead has the debate been reframed as the result of the risky actions of a male dominated financial sector rather than the result of corruption at the highest levels of the government, the military and the financial sector working in collusion? What we should be debating is what can be done to eradicate that corruption, and that implies an investigation of 9/11.
Finance companies operate in the world of existing resources and how to control and market them. Oil is the most profitable resources available on the planet, as a result of an automobile only transportation system, and it is a resource that is dwindling rapidly. The confluence of dwindling supply and skyrocketing demand makes this resource the most cherished prize on the planet and the bankers who operate the oil companies will do anything to acquire access to those resources, whether they are headed by women or men.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Continued: How We Reframe the Debate on Corruption in the Public Sector
Posted by: edgar_michel
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rastaman on Jun 27, 2009 8:23 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
you need look no further than the enablers of these "evil" than these men's wives.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I'll bet. . .
Posted by: Beck
» Worthless Army wife
Posted by: Honky the Nihilist IX
» OOOOOOOOOOOO !!! LOL !! Good one man !
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JSquercia on Jun 27, 2009 8:26 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
mess Greenspan, Summers and Rubin . Who got it RIGHT Brooksley Born and her reward was to
pushed aside by the aforementioned UNHOLY TRIO .
Who seems to have Right NOW Elizabeth Warren and yet two out three of Obama's Economic Advisers are the Same Clowns that screwed it up. We can add Geithner to list because as President of the New York Fed he did NOTHING
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Case in Point
Posted by: Spot
» A half a dozen individuals' actions empirically proves this article's premise true?
Posted by: Quist
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Birdland on Jun 27, 2009 8:46 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: THE FACT IS...True
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» Anna, do you have a shred of evidence to support your claim?
Posted by: Quist
» RE: THE FACT IS...
Posted by: Spot
» I agree Spot. Indoctrination (nurture, education, and so on) is the elephant in the room...
Posted by: Quist
Comments are closed-
Posted by: fhyre on Jun 27, 2009 8:48 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Elephant in the living room
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Ah, but if it is to be women... WHICH women?
Posted by: greentime
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ghoulman on Jun 27, 2009 9:19 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She was a large part of the 'Free Market' ideology that arose from the growing neocon influence in the 80s. Thatcher/Reagan/Mulroney... they changed everything in economic policy that has led to the current collapse.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Margaret Thatcher
Posted by: Amy27605
» RE: Margaret Thatcher
Posted by: Spot
» RE: Margaret Thatcher
Posted by: Spot
» RE: Margaret Thatcher
Posted by: Spot
» RE: ok Spot!
Posted by: Ghoulman
» RE: Margaret Thatcher
Posted by: Zimbly
» Bravo Zimbly!!! Well said and I totally agree.
Posted by: Quist
» RE: Margaret Thatcher
Posted by: Ghoulman
» RE: Margaret Thatcher
Posted by: Zimbly
» RE: Margaret Thatcher
Posted by: Ghoulman
» RE: Margaret Thatcher
Posted by: Ghoulman
» RE: Margaret Thatcher
Posted by: IRIQUOIS227
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jun 27, 2009 9:26 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: WOMEN AND THE WORLD OF MONEY
Posted by: Birdland
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GuitarBob on Jun 27, 2009 10:21 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Greed , like all human vices is not gender specific.
Neither is morality or ethics something that women have "exclusive proprietary rights " to..if fact women can be as aggresive and as maculine or even more so than a man, so even "masculinity" has nothing to do with being male. As we say here sometimes.. " a man in a womans body" .. to close.. one of the most famous "man in a womans body"..Lady MacBeth " The raven himself is hoarse
That croaks the fatal entrance of Duncan
Under my battlements. Come, you spirits
That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here,
And fill me from the crown to the toe topful
Of direst cruelty!"
Remember, this is a woman speaking.....
So this article is a non sequitor..its pure BS.
The genius of Shakespeare was that he was able to grasp both genders equally well and also showed that the attributes of masculinty and femininity were and are transparent to the sexes.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Greed is gender transparent
Posted by: velvet acid christ
» RE: Greed is gender transparent
Posted by: Amy27605
» RE: Greed is gender transparent
Posted by: GuitarBob
» RE: Greed is gender transparent
Posted by: hilaryuk
» RE: Greed is gender transparent
Posted by: Zimbly
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cori on Jun 27, 2009 11:10 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Looks like getting screwed is the new American dream- Now in another Great Depression, the powers behind the scene are destroying our nation. While Wall Street has pulled off the biggest robbery in history, bringing down the world economy, congress is nowhere to be found. Puppet presidents seem to be the norm now. So I am urging all voters not to reelect those reps who are not working for you. Blue Dog Democrats are the worst.
While Medicare, Medicade and Soc Sec have already been looted, they are roaring ahead with funding for Iraq and Afghanistan. But the safety nets that we all paid into all our lives are now in danger of being cut.
In 1974 I got 65 weeks of unemployment.
Was Income Really Up? From investor report John Mauldin
More and more people each week are thrown into very dire circumstances when they fail to find jobs and lose the benefits. Care to wager whether, when Congress comes back from vacation, the time people are allowed to be on unemployment will be increased? We better hope so.
Now, let's turn our attention to today's headline. Income is surprisingly up. That has to be a green shoot, right? Well, not if you look at the underlying data.
Personal income from wages and salaries was down $12 billion in May. So how did income go up? A large increase in "government social benefits" and a decline in personal taxes accounted for all the gain, and then some. The increase was the effect from the recent stimulus package, which is (for now) temporary, and not the result of a recovering economy. Hardly green shoots. It is just borrowed money from another (government) source. In principle, it is not much different than home equity withdrawal, except that taxpayers are on the hook.
And those government subsidies are going to increase. What it shows is that the average duration of unemployment is at a 60-year high, and rising. It is now at 22.5 weeks.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: reg373 on Jun 27, 2009 11:16 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: These reforms are long overdue...
Posted by: Spot
Comments are closed-
Posted by: velvet acid christ on Jun 27, 2009 11:20 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Would it be fair to say: "Is The Education Meltdown A Crisis Of Femininity Run Amuck? It's Time for Men To Step In."
With equality comes accountability. If we're going to blame men for certain problems in society, then women should also be held accountable for their contributions.
I would love to here your thoughts. My experience with feminists suggests the foundation of your movement is based on victimization. When a person thrusts themselves in the role of victim, they usually have zero concept of accountability.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Cabaret Voltaire
Posted by: La Colombetta
» RE: Cabaret Voltaire
Posted by: velvet acid christ
» RE: Cabaret Voltaire
Posted by: La Colombetta
» RE: Cabaret Voltaire
Posted by: velvet acid christ
» RE: Perfectly irrelevant.
Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Perfectly irrelevant.
Posted by: velvet acid christ
» RE: Perfectly irrelevant.
Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Cabaret Voltaire
Posted by: Amy27605
» RE: Cabaret Voltaire
Posted by: velvet acid christ
» RE: Cabaret Voltaire
Posted by: velvet acid christ
» RE: Cabaret Voltaire
Posted by: Amy27605
» RE: Cabaret Voltaire
Posted by: velvet acid christ
» RE: Cabaret Voltaire
Posted by: minmotstand
Comments are closed-
Posted by: login@bugmenot.com on Jun 27, 2009 11:32 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What happened at BS, Lehman (Wall Street) had more to do with de-regulation laws and loopholes created, configured, lobbied (and sold) for -and voted on by both genders.
Don't fool yourself. Greed and Graft afflict the sexes equally.
The headline of this article is bothersome.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: joycehays@gmail.com on Jun 27, 2009 1:03 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's The Testosterone Stupid!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: It's The Testerone Stupid!
Posted by: velvet acid christ
» RE: It's The Testerone Stupid!
Posted by: Birdland
» RE: It's The Testerone Stupid!
Posted by: Spot
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jejer on Jun 27, 2009 1:51 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: minmotstand on Jun 27, 2009 2:02 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Margaret Thatcher is a really good example of a POS imperialist female world leader.
Cristina Kirchner, the current President of Argentina, is another good example of a corrupt, greedy FEMALE world leader.
Power and greed is corrupting, I don't care what kind of sexual organ you possess.
And I can't stand feminists and woman who keep trumpeting this ridiculous and plain ignorant point.
During the presidential primaries in the US, I knew of so many women who were supporting Hilary Clinton because she was a woman in addition to being a Democrat, two of the dumbest reasons I've ever heard for wanting to vote for someone.
You don't learn about a person's character from their gender and self-imposed labels.
Seriously, women, what the hell. Quit letting gender blind you so much, you're smarter than that.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Women are just as capable of greed, malice, and deceit...
Posted by: Spot
» RE: ...and being more capable than men of succeeding...?
Posted by: ZPaul
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Quist on Jun 27, 2009 2:05 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do a majority of American women desire wealth and fortune as much as their male counterparts? From my understanding, experience and observations the answers is a resounding YES!
This article is ironic and hypocritical at best and just plain divisive and contentious at worse. Where are the facts, evidence, science, rational arguments, or logical reasoning in this article? This is just another fluff piece at AlterNet to try and paint all "progressives" as feminist, vegan, Democrat, porn-hating extremists. WTF???
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Someone gave you a 1. Wasn't me.
Posted by: Spot
» It must be one of my fans Spot. LOL
Posted by: Quist
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Zeugitai on Jun 27, 2009 2:22 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» And on the other hand...
Posted by: Quist
» RE: On the other hand. . .
Posted by: Spot
» Well said Spot.
Posted by: Quist
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Spot on Jun 27, 2009 3:52 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's not blame this on testicles.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: littlepitcher on Jun 28, 2009 11:23 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Female sharks get promoted by male sharks. Cooperative, gender-identified, win-win gals don't.
And, yes, I'm a feminist, but I don't believe that women are better-behaved than men in situations where gals can get away with bad behavior. I do recognize that predators attack smaller people so they don't get torn to pieces, and that smaller often means female. Predatory men attack other men, businesses, taxpayers--you name it. We fight predators, and if men get a better deal from it, that's fine. From rape to ripoff mechanics, both sexes do get victimized and we want an end to victimization in general, not the ability to define victimhood as female.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Libertine on Jun 28, 2009 11:44 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The idea that women are more inherently moral is a ludicrous one and I'm surprised that people are still trying to peddle that bill of goods in 2009.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Annapurna1 on Jun 28, 2009 12:16 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ahimsa on Jun 28, 2009 12:17 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WTF is this supposed to mean?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: teel on Jun 28, 2009 1:13 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is the proven benefit for a COMPANY when it comes to female as opposed to male leadership exactly?
Don't give me the bog standard "different perspective blah blah" burp, what exactly is the scientifically proven benefit for a company in having women as managers?
Do you know why none of the raging feminists are out there fighting for more lesbian CEOs? Or more gay CEOs? Or more transsexual hindu CEOs or some other group that are clearly under-represented in corporate management?
Because THEY are not part of THAT group themselves. Cynically, this is not a fight for fairness. The top jobs with top salaries are few, and the people who want them are many. That means you have to fight for you right.
Is it fair? Nope. What else is new?
The actual deal is this: men win out because we've worn the pants since jesus was born. Because of this, we've shaped society so as to maintain this advantage. Women want the power we have, ergo there's a war for power. Failing to get ahead women have thought up the idea of discrimination and legislation to win this battle. Who knows, it might just work. Just be clear about something, it all boils down to who has the power and who doesn't. The people with power want to hold on to it, the people without want to get it. Simple.
In actual fact this is NOT a fight to help an under-represented minority in the workplace, it's a clever way for a specific group of people to broker more power for themselves. That's why you don't see any of these lady business-suit clad go-getters fighting for lesbian-vegans to get promotions.
Closing thoughts. Men have the power. If you want it, you'll have to come and get it. If the roles where reversed you would give us NO quarter and we all know it. What, you think a building full of women will make for a more successful business? Seriously ladies, what would you prefer in your office. 20 guys, 5 girls or 20 girls 5 guys? There IS a reason little girls play 2 and 2 in daycare you know... Three will always be a crowd.
Best of luck.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Alenna on Jun 28, 2009 3:17 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On the other hand the Iraq War - with Bush standing on the aircraft carrier in his flightsuit-with-codpiece saying "Bring 'em On" - THAT was probably and example of male Machismo run-amuck.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Oil.
Posted by: oregoncharles
Comments are closed-
Posted by: velvet acid christ on Jun 28, 2009 3:43 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ozonehole on Jun 28, 2009 4:34 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since I'm a an "Old China hand," I'll add Empress Dowager Cixi, China's worst emperor ever.
The point is, when it comes to shear greed, idiocy, cruelty and right-wing nuthood, men do not have a monopoly. It's true that women have fewer opportunities to ascend the throne (both in business and politics), but when they do, they've proven that they can be equal opportunity sociopaths.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS on Jun 28, 2009 5:16 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: oregoncharles on Jun 29, 2009 9:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The subtitle: Yes.
It's possible that males are inherently more aggressive, and that quality made things worse. But we now have plenty of evidence (Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, Martha Steward,etc.) that women in the same position, with the same self-interest, do the same things men would. We just aren't that different. I thought that was fundamental feminism.
So until we change the system and its rewards, changing the people will have very little effect.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Two Questions:
Posted by: osd
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SocoLoco on Jun 29, 2009 3:20 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Philip Newton on Jun 30, 2009 7:18 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Jul 1, 2009 8:25 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But, as usual, guys get the blame?
Oh, that's right... feminists have contempt for any meaningful public debate.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Red State Gal on Jul 3, 2009 7:41 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One off's like Thatcher or Gandhi are just that; they have to out-male the males to even survive. But in a woman-run fund, she just has to out-perform the market, not male co-workers. That's a very different kettle of fish. When women have substantive decision-making power that does not ultimately rest on men's approval, you get something very different.
I say let's give it a chance! As one man in Iceland put it (after the male-run banks had lost all his money), "Please, I just want a woman to look after my money from now on . . . ." What did he know that led him to say that? That the males treat business like a cross between a video game and a pissing contest, and women (when they are in real power and don't need men's approval to stay there) treat business like somebody's family depends on the returns.
Red State Gal
RedStateFeminists
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DonaldA on Jun 27, 2009 1:11 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: nonsense
Posted by: Robin Leslie
» RE: nonsense
Posted by: countingdaisies
Comments are closed-
Posted by: billslm on Jun 27, 2009 1:47 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So it doesn't matter whether male or female. Feminism is nothing more than The Big Nag, anyway. Just one more instance of women nagging men.
Trouble is that apparently, women expect the men to actively bring them in. And they nag men when they don't.
Men don't even bring each other in. Men on Wall Street are killers. Women say they want equality. But really they want whatever men have. So they want to be killers. Let them kill their own humanity. Fine with me.
The first time I went out to dinner with the woman who is now my wife, I ordered dessert for myself and my future wife turned to the wait person. "Oh," she said, "I'll just have some of his."
Right there, I got a huge insight into the nature of women and what feminism is about.
I don't know how other men feel about such things but I won't have it. "No, ma'am," I said. "You won't have any of mine at all. Not now. Not ever. So you had better order your own."
She got the picture.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: What Women Want
Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: What SOME Women Want
Posted by: Amy27605
» RE: What Women Want
Posted by: ender
» RE: What Women Want
Posted by: Sympa
» I just got a huge insight into the nature of a certain class of men and what they're about
Posted by: Beck
» RE: I just got a huge insight into the nature of a certain class of men and what they're about
Posted by: Amy27605
» RE: I just got a huge insight into the nature of a certain class of men and what they're about
Posted by: hagwind
» RE: What Women Want
Posted by: joycehays@gmail.com
» RE: What Women Want
Posted by: hagwind
» Whew!
Posted by: morticia
» RE: Whew!
Posted by: morticia
» RE: Whew!
Posted by: billslm
» RE: Whew!
Posted by: morticia
» RE: What Women Want
Posted by: Spot
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ender on Jun 27, 2009 4:03 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
See anyone in their 30's in handcuffs like in the late 1980s?
No you haven't: we as a generation have been denied access to the upper echelons of corporate hierarchy necessary to be in a position to perpetrate massive wholesale fraud, by the very same baby boomers who refuse to - and now because of their own shenanigans can't afford to - retire.
I fully support equal rights for everyone, and I am truly amazed/disgusted that women STILL only get paid 80% for what a man does for the same work (and Jesus H. Christ, are we STILL debating whether or not homosexuals are human beings? Really?)
However, this recent economic downturn has been hardest on men; I guess it's the abhorrent 20% "vagina discount" on pay that makes female employees so attractive to corporate America. No wonder the Repugnicans fought so hard against the fair pay act: it'd increase corporate payrolls overnight.
So let's not forget who the real enemy is: the older generation who refuses move out of the driver's seat, because it sure as hell ain't my fellow genxers that are keeping women down.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Baby boomers v. Genxers
Posted by: hilaryuk
» RE: Baby boomers v. Genxers
Posted by: ender
» RE: Baby boomers v. Genxers (Oh, Give Me a Break!)
Posted by: Jayzer
» RE: Baby boomers v. Genxers (Oh, Give Me a Break!)
Posted by: wbblack
» The baby boomers doth protest too much
Posted by: ender
» RE: Baby boomers v. Genxers (Oh, Give Me a Break!)
Posted by: Spot
» RE: Baby boomers v. Genxers (Oh, Give Me a Break!)
Posted by: ender
» RE: Baby boomers v. Genxers
Posted by: ender
» RE: Baby boomers v. Genxers
Posted by: hagwind
» RE: Baby boomers v. Genxers
Posted by: ender
» RE: Baby boomers v. Genxers
Posted by: hilaryuk
» RE: Baby boomers v. Genxers
Posted by: Kathy-B
» RE: Baby boomers v. Genxers
Posted by: ender
» RE: Baby boomers v. Genxers
Posted by: victoriahokulani
» RE: Baby boomers v. Genxers
Posted by: ender
» RE: Baby boomers v. Genxers This just isn't true. Sorry.
Posted by: greentime
» RE: Baby boomers v. Genxers This just isn't true. Sorry.
Posted by: ender
» RE: Baby boomers v. Genxers This just isn't true. Sorry.
Posted by: ender
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bonapartist on Jun 27, 2009 4:19 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the same vein I want to see the bastards who caused it at the gallows. Be it women, men, aliens, green ducks with laser beams on their heads.
I am unlikely to get either wish but it changes nothing, it is not about gender. It is about top 10%, primarly in US, ripping off the rest of the world. Until that oligarhy is gone, or at least weakened, there cannot be any changes or advances.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Non issue
Posted by: Spot
» RE: Be it women, men, aliens, green ducks with laser beams on their heads.
Posted by: greentime
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Jun 27, 2009 4:33 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In my experience, and as the article suggests at certain points, diversity tends to have a positive, neutralizing effect on the work environment. But the high risk/reward financial business attracts, breeds, and/or grooms a certain kind of person and behavior, regardless of gender.
The only difference might be that when they run off with their investors' life savings, they'll piss it away on shoes and spa vacations instead of hookers and private jets.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ted Voth Jr on Jun 27, 2009 4:44 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But… one of the great arguments for women's suffrage was that after women got the vote, there'd be no more corrupt, stupid, vicious politics– and thus, for instance, no more wars.
What happened? I'd love to believe the premise of this article, but experience has shown that premise to be wrong. Sorry, truly sorry…
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: One Argument for Women's Suffrage…
Posted by: hagwind
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MicroGlyphics on Jun 27, 2009 5:19 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Assessment Is Only Partially Correct
Posted by: hagwind
» RE: Assessment Is Only Partially Correct
Posted by: hilaryuk
» ITS THE SOCIALISM... AGAIN
Posted by: reelman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Jun 27, 2009 5:46 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» So true Jen. I was thinking about Carly Fiorina myself when reading this article.
Posted by: Quist
» Wow...I got a 1 rating just for agreeing with Jen. I must have pissed off some troll.
Posted by: Quist
» RE: So true Jen. I was thinking about Carly Fiorina myself when reading this article.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» RE: So true Jen. I was thinking about Carly Fiorina myself when reading this article.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sausage on Jun 27, 2009 6:10 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes.
Whether or not it is an observable psychological fact that women would make less risky investments than men, the end result would still be the same. Why?
Because they all, men and women Wall Streeters, went to the same schools. They all work for the same bosses, financial companies on the way up and so on and so forth.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» And they both count using the same ten fingers
Posted by: grindermonkey
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rafaeltoral on Jun 27, 2009 6:27 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Sexism
Posted by: velvet acid christ
» RE: Sexism
Posted by: Spot
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Robin Leslie on Jun 27, 2009 6:34 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
free market fundamentalism. At last men too can free themselves from the idiotic Machievellian enterprise of power per se, and be 'a man for others' in the manner of Jesus Christ, who understood and loved women for themselves and not for what they have. Women are different, though they share the same humanity as men, they are complimentary to men and vice versa, 'gifts' to each other to be hallowed and treasured. What we so sorely need today is a politico-economic apparatus that reflects this!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: LeonBNJ on Jun 27, 2009 6:41 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Women can't break the ceilings
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» The gatekeepers hold the keys
Posted by: Spot
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MyLeftFoot on Jun 27, 2009 6:52 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Just another button pushing article...
Posted by: Zeugitai
» RE: Just another button pushing article...
Posted by: MyLeftFoot
» RE: Just another button pushing article...
Posted by: Spot
» RE: Just another button pushing article...
Posted by: Spot
Comments are closed-
Posted by: IRIQUOIS227 on Jun 27, 2009 7:17 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: zooeyhall on Jun 27, 2009 7:53 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know plenty of women who are in business and finance and who strongly support a lassaiz-faire capitalism and a ruthless economic and social Darwinism. Fanatical Bush and Reagan supporters. And on the "flip" side of the coin--if you can call it that---there are plenty of female "Clintonistas" who strongly support the Blue Dog type of capitalism that the Clintons gave us. Many of them were strong supporters of Hillary and are still vehemently as anti-Obama as any Republican.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JohnTruth2001 on Jun 27, 2009 8:12 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are indeed such things as conspiracies, and this is one of them!!! If Nazis could gas innocent men, women, and children, then this could well happen to:
The implosion of the world's economy is being orchestrated by our private Federal Reserve & the other private central banks!!! It's a scheme of the Illuminati/NWO/globalists to destroy U.S. sovereignty & usher in a one-world dictatorship!
The Elites/Illuminati/NWO/globalists are sick eugenicists who want a herd of merely 500 million sheeple in the entire world, under their control, to serve them under a feudalistic system!
http://www.endthefed.us/
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: edgar_michel on Jun 27, 2009 8:16 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is true that, in the United States because of our Protestant origins, women have taken the back seat and their voices muted. But to suggest that Kacki Zehner would be any better than Henry Paulsen or Lloyd Blankfein at steering world investments hardly scratches the surface of identifying the problems beset by the United States.
In all things, a man-women partnership brings to the table the best talents of both of them because both have different hardwired perceptions with regard to preserving the family unit, of which a financial organization can viewed as an abstraction. But the problem isn’t who is at the helm of Goldman Sachs, it is the existence of Goldman Sachs itself.
Consider this excerpt taken form Wikipedia:
“ The Federal Reserve's approval of their (Goldman Sachs) bid to become banks ended the ascendancy of the securities firms, 75 years after Congress separated them from deposit-taking lenders, and capped weeks of chaos that sent Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. into bankruptcy and led to the rushed sale of Merrill Lynch & Co. to Bank of America Corp.” I think that this excerpt correctly identifies the problem behind the financial meltdown. It isn’t just problems in the financial sector and it isn’t problems caused by a male dominated financial sector, though I feel that the melding of male and female minds always produces the better result, but it is systemic failure at all levels of government to stem consolidation of power into the hands of the very few.
If you want to know courageous women stepping up to the plate where men have fallen down then you should know the names of Mindy Kleinberg, Lorie Van Auken, Patty Casazza, Monica Gabriella, Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, Col. Ann Wright, and many many others. The first four in this group were some of the founders of the Family Steering Committee for the Investigation of 9/11. Why don’t we, when talking about women stepping up to the plate of leadership, mention these women, because after all they are some of the most courageous in our society. Why instead has the debate been reframed as the result of the risky actions of a male dominated financial sector rather than the result of corruption at the highest levels of the government, the military and the financial sector working in collusion? What we should be debating is what can be done to eradicate that corruption, and that implies an investigation of 9/11.
Finance companies operate in the world of existing resources and how to control and market them. Oil is the most profitable resources available on the planet, as a result of an automobile only transportation system, and it is a resource that is dwindling rapidly. The confluence of dwindling supply and skyrocketing demand makes this resource the most cherished prize on the planet and the bankers who operate the oil companies will do anything to acquire access to those resources, whether they are headed by women or men.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Continued: How We Reframe the Debate on Corruption in the Public Sector
Posted by: edgar_michel
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rastaman on Jun 27, 2009 8:23 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
you need look no further than the enablers of these "evil" than these men's wives.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I'll bet. . .
Posted by: Beck
» Worthless Army wife
Posted by: Honky the Nihilist IX
» OOOOOOOOOOOO !!! LOL !! Good one man !
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JSquercia on Jun 27, 2009 8:26 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
mess Greenspan, Summers and Rubin . Who got it RIGHT Brooksley Born and her reward was to
pushed aside by the aforementioned UNHOLY TRIO .
Who seems to have Right NOW Elizabeth Warren and yet two out three of Obama's Economic Advisers are the Same Clowns that screwed it up. We can add Geithner to list because as President of the New York Fed he did NOTHING
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Case in Point
Posted by: Spot
» A half a dozen individuals' actions empirically proves this article's premise true?
Posted by: Quist
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Birdland on Jun 27, 2009 8:46 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: THE FACT IS...True
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» Anna, do you have a shred of evidence to support your claim?
Posted by: Quist
» RE: THE FACT IS...
Posted by: Spot
» I agree Spot. Indoctrination (nurture, education, and so on) is the elephant in the room...
Posted by: Quist
Comments are closed-
Posted by: fhyre on Jun 27, 2009 8:48 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Elephant in the living room
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Ah, but if it is to be women... WHICH women?
Posted by: greentime
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ghoulman on Jun 27, 2009 9:19 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She was a large part of the 'Free Market' ideology that arose from the growing neocon influence in the 80s. Thatcher/Reagan/Mulroney... they changed everything in economic policy that has led to the current collapse.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Margaret Thatcher
Posted by: Amy27605
» RE: Margaret Thatcher
Posted by: Spot
» RE: Margaret Thatcher
Posted by: Spot
» RE: Margaret Thatcher
Posted by: Spot
» RE: ok Spot!
Posted by: Ghoulman
» RE: Margaret Thatcher
Posted by: Zimbly
» Bravo Zimbly!!! Well said and I totally agree.
Posted by: Quist
» RE: Margaret Thatcher
Posted by: Ghoulman
» RE: Margaret Thatcher
Posted by: Zimbly
» RE: Margaret Thatcher
Posted by: Ghoulman
» RE: Margaret Thatcher
Posted by: Ghoulman
» RE: Margaret Thatcher
Posted by: IRIQUOIS227
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jun 27, 2009 9:26 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: WOMEN AND THE WORLD OF MONEY
Posted by: Birdland
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GuitarBob on Jun 27, 2009 10:21 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Greed , like all human vices is not gender specific.
Neither is morality or ethics something that women have "exclusive proprietary rights " to..if fact women can be as aggresive and as maculine or even more so than a man, so even "masculinity" has nothing to do with being male. As we say here sometimes.. " a man in a womans body" .. to close.. one of the most famous "man in a womans body"..Lady MacBeth " The raven himself is hoarse
That croaks the fatal entrance of Duncan
Under my battlements. Come, you spirits
That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here,
And fill me from the crown to the toe topful
Of direst cruelty!"
Remember, this is a woman speaking.....
So this article is a non sequitor..its pure BS.
The genius of Shakespeare was that he was able to grasp both genders equally well and also showed that the attributes of masculinty and femininity were and are transparent to the sexes.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Greed is gender transparent
Posted by: velvet acid christ
» RE: Greed is gender transparent
Posted by: Amy27605
» RE: Greed is gender transparent
Posted by: GuitarBob
» RE: Greed is gender transparent
Posted by: hilaryuk
» RE: Greed is gender transparent
Posted by: Zimbly
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cori on Jun 27, 2009 11:10 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Looks like getting screwed is the new American dream- Now in another Great Depression, the powers behind the scene are destroying our nation. While Wall Street has pulled off the biggest robbery in history, bringing down the world economy, congress is nowhere to be found. Puppet presidents seem to be the norm now. So I am urging all voters not to reelect those reps who are not working for you. Blue Dog Democrats are the worst.
While Medicare, Medicade and Soc Sec have already been looted, they are roaring ahead with funding for Iraq and Afghanistan. But the safety nets that we all paid into all our lives are now in danger of being cut.
In 1974 I got 65 weeks of unemployment.
Was Income Really Up? From investor report John Mauldin
More and more people each week are thrown into very dire circumstances when they fail to find jobs and lose the benefits. Care to wager whether, when Congress comes back from vacation, the time people are allowed to be on unemployment will be increased? We better hope so.
Now, let's turn our attention to today's headline. Income is surprisingly up. That has to be a green shoot, right? Well, not if you look at the underlying data.
Personal income from wages and salaries was down $12 billion in May. So how did income go up? A large increase in "government social benefits" and a decline in personal taxes accounted for all the gain, and then some. The increase was the effect from the recent stimulus package, which is (for now) temporary, and not the result of a recovering economy. Hardly green shoots. It is just borrowed money from another (government) source. In principle, it is not much different than home equity withdrawal, except that taxpayers are on the hook.
And those government subsidies are going to increase. What it shows is that the average duration of unemployment is at a 60-year high, and rising. It is now at 22.5 weeks.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: reg373 on Jun 27, 2009 11:16 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: These reforms are long overdue...
Posted by: Spot
Comments are closed-
Posted by: velvet acid christ on Jun 27, 2009 11:20 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Would it be fair to say: "Is The Education Meltdown A Crisis Of Femininity Run Amuck? It's Time for Men To Step In."
With equality comes accountability. If we're going to blame men for certain problems in society, then women should also be held accountable for their contributions.
I would love to here your thoughts. My experience with feminists suggests the foundation of your movement is based on victimization. When a person thrusts themselves in the role of victim, they usually have zero concept of accountability.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Cabaret Voltaire
Posted by: La Colombetta
» RE: Cabaret Voltaire
Posted by: velvet acid christ
» RE: Cabaret Voltaire
Posted by: La Colombetta
» RE: Cabaret Voltaire
Posted by: velvet acid christ
» RE: Perfectly irrelevant.
Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Perfectly irrelevant.
Posted by: velvet acid christ
» RE: Perfectly irrelevant.
Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Cabaret Voltaire
Posted by: Amy27605
» RE: Cabaret Voltaire
Posted by: velvet acid christ
» RE: Cabaret Voltaire
Posted by: velvet acid christ
» RE: Cabaret Voltaire
Posted by: Amy27605
» RE: Cabaret Voltaire
Posted by: velvet acid christ
» RE: Cabaret Voltaire
Posted by: minmotstand
Comments are closed-
Posted by: login@bugmenot.com on Jun 27, 2009 11:32 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What happened at BS, Lehman (Wall Street) had more to do with de-regulation laws and loopholes created, configured, lobbied (and sold) for -and voted on by both genders.
Don't fool yourself. Greed and Graft afflict the sexes equally.
The headline of this article is bothersome.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: joycehays@gmail.com on Jun 27, 2009 1:03 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's The Testosterone Stupid!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: It's The Testerone Stupid!
Posted by: velvet acid christ
» RE: It's The Testerone Stupid!
Posted by: Birdland
» RE: It's The Testerone Stupid!
Posted by: Spot
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jejer on Jun 27, 2009 1:51 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: minmotstand on Jun 27, 2009 2:02 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Margaret Thatcher is a really good example of a POS imperialist female world leader.
Cristina Kirchner, the current President of Argentina, is another good example of a corrupt, greedy FEMALE world leader.
Power and greed is corrupting, I don't care what kind of sexual organ you possess.
And I can't stand feminists and woman who keep trumpeting this ridiculous and plain ignorant point.
During the presidential primaries in the US, I knew of so many women who were supporting Hilary Clinton because she was a woman in addition to being a Democrat, two of the dumbest reasons I've ever heard for wanting to vote for someone.
You don't learn about a person's character from their gender and self-imposed labels.
Seriously, women, what the hell. Quit letting gender blind you so much, you're smarter than that.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Women are just as capable of greed, malice, and deceit...
Posted by: Spot
» RE: ...and being more capable than men of succeeding...?
Posted by: ZPaul
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Quist on Jun 27, 2009 2:05 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do a majority of American women desire wealth and fortune as much as their male counterparts? From my understanding, experience and observations the answers is a resounding YES!
This article is ironic and hypocritical at best and just plain divisive and contentious at worse. Where are the facts, evidence, science, rational arguments, or logical reasoning in this article? This is just another fluff piece at AlterNet to try and paint all "progressives" as feminist, vegan, Democrat, porn-hating extremists. WTF???
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Someone gave you a 1. Wasn't me.
Posted by: Spot
» It must be one of my fans Spot. LOL
Posted by: Quist
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Zeugitai on Jun 27, 2009 2:22 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» And on the other hand...
Posted by: Quist
» RE: On the other hand. . .
Posted by: Spot
» Well said Spot.
Posted by: Quist
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Spot on Jun 27, 2009 3:52 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's not blame this on testicles.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: littlepitcher on Jun 28, 2009 11:23 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Female sharks get promoted by male sharks. Cooperative, gender-identified, win-win gals don't.
And, yes, I'm a feminist, but I don't believe that women are better-behaved than men in situations where gals can get away with bad behavior. I do recognize that predators attack smaller people so they don't get torn to pieces, and that smaller often means female. Predatory men attack other men, businesses, taxpayers--you name it. We fight predators, and if men get a better deal from it, that's fine. From rape to ripoff mechanics, both sexes do get victimized and we want an end to victimization in general, not the ability to define victimhood as female.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Libertine on Jun 28, 2009 11:44 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The idea that women are more inherently moral is a ludicrous one and I'm surprised that people are still trying to peddle that bill of goods in 2009.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Annapurna1 on Jun 28, 2009 12:16 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ahimsa on Jun 28, 2009 12:17 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WTF is this supposed to mean?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: teel on Jun 28, 2009 1:13 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is the proven benefit for a COMPANY when it comes to female as opposed to male leadership exactly?
Don't give me the bog standard "different perspective blah blah" burp, what exactly is the scientifically proven benefit for a company in having women as managers?
Do you know why none of the raging feminists are out there fighting for more lesbian CEOs? Or more gay CEOs? Or more transsexual hindu CEOs or some other group that are clearly under-represented in corporate management?
Because THEY are not part of THAT group themselves. Cynically, this is not a fight for fairness. The top jobs with top salaries are few, and the people who want them are many. That means you have to fight for you right.
Is it fair? Nope. What else is new?
The actual deal is this: men win out because we've worn the pants since jesus was born. Because of this, we've shaped society so as to maintain this advantage. Women want the power we have, ergo there's a war for power. Failing to get ahead women have thought up the idea of discrimination and legislation to win this battle. Who knows, it might just work. Just be clear about something, it all boils down to who has the power and who doesn't. The people with power want to hold on to it, the people without want to get it. Simple.
In actual fact this is NOT a fight to help an under-represented minority in the workplace, it's a clever way for a specific group of people to broker more power for themselves. That's why you don't see any of these lady business-suit clad go-getters fighting for lesbian-vegans to get promotions.
Closing thoughts. Men have the power. If you want it, you'll have to come and get it. If the roles where reversed you would give us NO quarter and we all know it. What, you think a building full of women will make for a more successful business? Seriously ladies, what would you prefer in your office. 20 guys, 5 girls or 20 girls 5 guys? There IS a reason little girls play 2 and 2 in daycare you know... Three will always be a crowd.
Best of luck.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Alenna on Jun 28, 2009 3:17 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On the other hand the Iraq War - with Bush standing on the aircraft carrier in his flightsuit-with-codpiece saying "Bring 'em On" - THAT was probably and example of male Machismo run-amuck.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Oil.
Posted by: oregoncharles
Comments are closed-
Posted by: velvet acid christ on Jun 28, 2009 3:43 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ozonehole on Jun 28, 2009 4:34 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since I'm a an "Old China hand," I'll add Empress Dowager Cixi, China's worst emperor ever.
The point is, when it comes to shear greed, idiocy, cruelty and right-wing nuthood, men do not have a monopoly. It's true that women have fewer opportunities to ascend the throne (both in business and politics), but when they do, they've proven that they can be equal opportunity sociopaths.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS on Jun 28, 2009 5:16 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: oregoncharles on Jun 29, 2009 9:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The subtitle: Yes.
It's possible that males are inherently more aggressive, and that quality made things worse. But we now have plenty of evidence (Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, Martha Steward,etc.) that women in the same position, with the same self-interest, do the same things men would. We just aren't that different. I thought that was fundamental feminism.
So until we change the system and its rewards, changing the people will have very little effect.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Two Questions:
Posted by: osd
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SocoLoco on Jun 29, 2009 3:20 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Philip Newton on Jun 30, 2009 7:18 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Jul 1, 2009 8:25 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But, as usual, guys get the blame?
Oh, that's right... feminists have contempt for any meaningful public debate.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Red State Gal on Jul 3, 2009 7:41 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One off's like Thatcher or Gandhi are just that; they have to out-male the males to even survive. But in a woman-run fund, she just has to out-perform the market, not male co-workers. That's a very different kettle of fish. When women have substantive decision-making power that does not ultimately rest on men's approval, you get something very different.
I say let's give it a chance! As one man in Iceland put it (after the male-run banks had lost all his money), "Please, I just want a woman to look after my money from now on . . . ." What did he know that led him to say that? That the males treat business like a cross between a video game and a pissing contest, and women (when they are in real power and don't need men's approval to stay there) treat business like somebody's family depends on the returns.
Red State Gal
RedStateFeminists
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Updated: Catholic Bishops Embrace Anti-Abortion Terrorizers Missy Smith and Randall Terry
10 Defining Feminist Moments of 2009
Going Undercover in the Crazy, Tragic World of Christian Gay-Conversion Therapy




