The female supremacist Hanna Rosin recently wrote a truly odious book called The End of Men. The best response to it we’ve seen to so has just been published by the ever-redoubtable Janet Bloomfield (‘JudgyBitch’). Enjoy:
Month: January 2014
SAVE warns American legislators about false information being presented by domestic violence groups
Our thanks to Ian for providing a link to this piece, in which the American organisation SAVE (Stop Abusive and Violent Environments) warns legislators of the long-running problem of domestic violence groups presenting information to legislators which they know to be false:
Kirstie Allsopp: Why women secretly love doing household chores
The fetching TV presenter Kirstie Allsopp (42) spills the beans about housework:
I’ve known a number of men who, after divorce, and whilst holding down full-time jobs, were struck by how little time and effort need go into housework in the modern era, with so many appliances to lighten the load.
This is what gender feminists look like – the video returns
About three weeks ago we posted on our YouTube channel recent video footage of gender feminists assaulting commendably peaceful Roman Catholic men seeking to prevent their cathedral in San Juan, Argentina, from being vandalised by the women.
The police did nothing to stop the women’s assaults – needless to say, had the genders been reversed, many men would have been arrested and charged with assaulting the women. It was ironically an illuminating display of female supremacy, whereby women weren’t held accountable for behaviour that men would never get away with. Behaviour that men wouldn’t let other men get away with.
There were 32 ‘upvotes’ and only one ‘downvote’ for the video, but one or more of the whiny brigade has evidently contacted YouTube, because the video’s been ‘flagged’ as inappropriate. YouTube have determined it contains content in violation of Community Guidelines, and removed it from our channel. I’ve just checked the guidelines and the only guideline the video violated was the following:
Graphic or gratuitous violence is not allowed. If your video shows someone getting hurt, attacked or humiliated, don’t post it.
This is priceless. Feminists have reported the video because it shows men ‘getting hurt, attacked, or humiliated’ – BY FEMINISTS!!! You couldn’t make it up. So be it. You can still catch the video through many links including the following, which has plenty of background information:
The bottom line? It’s taken me 10 minutes to expose gender feminists’ attempts to stop the public seeing how disgusting they really are, and the result will be more viewings of the video. I’ve said it before, and I’ll surely say it again:
Gender feminists – they aren’t the sharpest knives in the block, are they?
More American and British men and women prefer male bosses to female bosses
We know that when the proportion of women on corporate boards is increased financial performance can be expected to decline, but are there other outcomes which might partly compensate for this assault on meritocracy? For example, will the working environment become more pleasant and supportive for men, or women? Proponents of more women in the senior reaches of business often claim that women are more ‘consensual’ or ‘collaborative’ than men, or as I prefer to think of it, hopelessly indecisive.
What might one of these consensual geniuses do when a topic arises unexpectedly at a board meeting? Perhaps take a ‘comfort break’ during which she’ll attempt to forge a ‘consensus’ among whoever is around to ‘collaborate’ with at the time? So long as boards are happy with female directors taking two-hour-long comfort breaks, I see no problem. Of course board meetings could then last all week, but that’s surely a small price to pay to keep up the charade of often poorly qualified female directors appearing competent.
Our thanks to M for sending us links to two intriguing documents on employees’ preferences with respect to the genders of their bosses. The first is from the Gallup organisation in the United States, a report titled, ‘Americans Still Prefer a Male Boss’, which draws on a survey conducted in August 2013. Gallup has been asking questions in this area since 1953, 60 years ago. The report:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165791/americans-prefer-male-boss.aspx
Intriguingly, a higher proportion of women (40%) than men (29%) prefer a male boss. Key findings from the study:
MEN
29% prefer a male boss
18% prefer a female boss
51% have no preference
WOMEN
40% prefer a male boss
27% prefer a female boss
32% have no preference
Young Americans showed the same preference for male bosses as older Americans. Also from the report:
Implications
Although four in 10 Americans do not have a preference for a male or a female boss, those who do would rather work for a man than a woman – as they have since Gallup began asking this question in 1953.
The minority of working Americans who have a female boss break even in their preferences for the gender of their boss, suggesting that if the percentage of Americans who work for a woman increases, so might the percentage who would rather work for a woman. However, young Americans’ preferences are in line with the average, which suggests that the aging of today’s workforce may not in and of itself produce changes in these attitudes in the years ahead.
The fact that even in 2013 women are more likely to prefer a male boss over a female boss will come as no surprise to anyone who’s read Steve Moxon’s The Woman Racket (2008). One of Moxon’s key theses is that men are innately comfortable with rules-based competition – one of the reasons why so many more men than women engage in competitive sports, or watch them – and with a male dominance hierarchy based upon power, or its modern proxy, money. The female dominance hierarchy, by contrast, is based upon youth and attractiveness, so women tend to be less comfortable than men with the male dominance hierarchy which remains the basis of the vast majority of commercially successful organisations.
Many times over the course of my 30+ year-long business career women complained to me about their treatment at the hands of female bosses who generally had a small ‘in group’ they favoured in numerous ways. The situation was made worse by women being promoted beyond their abilities, in an effort to get more women into the senior reaches of organisations. In my experience men were rarely promoted beyond their abilities in this way, but if they were, they soon realised they had a problem, admitted it, and a solution found. Women in the same situation would struggle on in an effort to save face, they could become unpleasant to deal with, and end up with depression, stress-related absences from work, substance abuse issues…
Crossing the pond, we turn to a short but interesting article in the Daily Telegraph, published in 2010, ‘Workers Prefer Male Bosses’:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/7938593/Workers-prefer-male-bosses.html
From the article:
Two thirds of employees agree they would rather work for a man than a woman. Female bosses were accused of being moody and incapable of leaving their personal lives at home. A third of those polled claimed women in charge are ‘loose cannons’ – ready to stab colleagues in the back at any time, and who constantly feel threatened by other people in positions of authority. By contrast, both male and female workers believe male bosses were less likely to get involved in office politics, were easier to reason with and rarely suffered from mood swings.
Men are also said to be more straight-talking than women and rarely talk about others behind their backs, it emerged.
The article ends with the following:
Ten reasons why men are considered the best bosses
1. Straight talking
2. Less likely to get involved in office politics
3. Easier to reason with
4. Less likely to bitch about others
5. Less likely to suffer from mood swings
6. Able to leave their private life at home
7. No time of the month
8. More likely to share common interests
9. Don’t feel threatened if others are good at their jobs
10. More reasonable
Who could argue with any of the 10 reasons? So there we have it. When organisations drive up the proportion of bosses who are women, not only can they expect to see financial performance decline, but also a less happy workforce. It’s a lose/lose situation, engineered to keep a small number of privileged women in positions of power for which they’re poorly qualified. So why do the government, the business sector, employers’ organisations and professional bodies all relentlessly pursue this insane direction of travel? Things may have to get a lot worse before people in positions of influence come to their collective senses.
Spetsnaz: The Female Psychopath
We’ve been impressed with the videos put out recently by Spetsnaz. All nine are available through this link:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/sexual-politics/m-g-t-o-w/another-red-pill-star-is-born/
The first one, about female psychopathy, is particularly interesting. We’d encourage you to subscribe to his channel:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbbeOA5K7Hhc3I2vWG1jZ0w/videos
Janet Bloomfield: How do civilisations commit suicide? By elevating women at the expense of men.
An interesting new piece by Janet Bloomfield (JudgyBitch). It starts with an insightful critique of Camille Paglia’s recent interview for The Wall Street Journal:
Suzanne Venker: How ‘Bout The End of Hanna Rosin?
Hanna Rosin is the odious woman who wrote The End of Men. A short but powerful rebuttal by Suzanne Venker:
Our public challenges of Professor Susan Vinnicombe
I read a full-page article in yesterday’s Daily Mail with mounting disbelief. It was written by a young journalist, Ruth Sunderland, and it’s about the financial returns in 2013 of FTSE350 companies with female chief executives:
The article is the usual mix of celebrating women who are successes, whilst downplaying women who are failures. Of the four FTSE100 female CEOs, only one can be reasonably said to have delivered a strong performance in 2013 – Carolyn McCall of EasyJet. Let’s consider the three others:
Imperial Tobacco – shares down 8%.
Burberry – shares up 13%, very much in line with the FTSE100 average.
Royal Mail – shares up 78% but to quote Ms Sunderland, ‘The huge hike in the Royal Mail price owes far more to the fact that shares were woefully underpriced than to the acumen of Moya Greene.’
So, just one of the four female FTSE100 CEOs performed more strongly than the average male FTSE100 CEO in 2013. The article’s downplaying of female failure is breathtaking:
Cynthia Carroll left the top position at mining giant Anglo American earlier this year after disappointing investors and has been replaced by a man.
‘Disappointing investors’? They lost their shirts. In the course of Cynthia Carroll’s five-year tenure at Anglo American £9 BILLION was wiped off the company’s value. The following is a link to our piece on the matter, along with further information on the performances of other female CEOs:
http://c4mb.wordpress.com/2013/02/04/womens-performances-as-ceos-of-major-companies/
Which brings us to Susan Vinnicombe of the Cranfield International Centre for Women Leaders. She’s long been the world’s leading academic advocate for more women on boards. In July 2012 she admitted to a House of Lords inquiry that she had no evidence of a causal link between increasing female representation on boards, and enhanced financial performance:
Her exact words:
Thirdly, there has been quite a push in the past – indeed, we ourselves have engaged in such research – to look at the relationship between having women on corporate boards and financial performance. We do not subscribe to this research. We have shared it with chairmen and they do not think that it makes sense. We agree that it does not make sense. You cannot correlate two or three women on a massive corporate board with a return on investment, return on equity, turnover or profits. We have dropped such research in the past five years and I am pleased to say that Catalyst, which claims to have done a ground-breaking study on this in the US, officially dropped this line of argument last September.
From the Daily Mail article:
Much as the feminist lobby might wish to claim a victory for woman-power, however, it is impossible to prove that female directors are likely to deliver better returns than men.
It is impossible to prove that, for one simple reason. The nearest we have to proof of the impact of increasing the proportion of female directors is five longitudinal studies, all of which show corporate financial decline resulting. Our short briefing paper with the studies’ full Abstracts:
Back to the article:
Professor Susan Vinnicombe of the Cranfield University School of Management, which compiles the annual Female FTSE Board Report, says: ‘It is very difficult to say that superior performance is due to a boss being a woman. But there is mounting research that suggests having women on the board is associated with stronger financial performance. This is not quite the same as saying women are the cause of the performance, but there is a strong correlation.’
We get so tired of this sort of tortured language:
‘… suggests having women on the board is associated with stronger financial performance’
‘This is not quite the same as saying women…’
IT’S NOT REMOTELY THE SAME. Most readers of the article will reasonably assume correlation is an indicator of causation, but all the reports and studies we’ve seen presenting correlations (McKinsey, Credit Suisse, Reuters Thomson, Catalyst…) say that not only is correlation not an indicator of causation, it shouldn’t be taken to even infer it.
It’s long overdue for us to publicly challenge Susan Vinnicombe. We’re making two challenges:
We challenge you to stop misleading people into believing correlations between increased female representation on boards and enhanced financial performance are, or may be, indicative of a beneficial gender effect, thereby justifying in some people’s minds (not ours) the government’s policy direction of pressuring companies to increase the number of women on their boards, through the threat of legislated gender quotas.
We challenge you to critique and discredit the five longitudinal studies which show that increasing female representation on corporate boards leads on average to corporate financial decline.
So why are there (on average) positive correlations between increasing female representation on boards, and enhanced financial performance? In our view it’s because strongly performing companies can better afford to indulge in some social engineering, and in some sectors where women make up the majority of customers (e.g. the retail sector) it’s also good PR. A gender analogy from outside the workplace – when rich men marry beautiful women, we don’t say the women caused the men to become rich, do we?
Angry Harry: Is the Training of Women Doctors A Waste of Money?
A really solid piece by the legendary MHRA, ‘Angry Harry’:
http://www.angryharry.com/esIstheTrainingofWomenDoctorsAWaste.htm
Justice for Men & Boys 