Monday, June 13, 2011

How about the perils of too much estrogen in the room?

ABC's This Week with Christiane Amanpour had a ridiculously sexist exchange this week with an Economy panel suggesting that women are superior to men in politics and business (thanks to the reader who emailed this story):

AMANPOUR: And, no, they don't. You'd be hard-pressed to find a sex scandal involving a female politician these days, which begs the question, what if there were more women in politics and in positions of power? Would they change the way business is done from Wall Street to Washington and beyond?

We decided to explore that issue this morning with Torie Clarke, the former assistant secretary of defense for public affairs in the Bush administration, with Cecilia Attias, the former first lady of France who was married to president Nicolas Sarkozy, and she is the founder of Cecilia Attias Foundation for Women, and ABC's Claire Shipman, author of "Womenomics: Write Your Own Rules for Success."

Can you imagine if a bunch of couple of male panelists were talking about "the perils of too much estrogen in the room?" This exchange is sexist and inaccurate. If you want my further thoughts on what would happen if women ran the world, you can read an old PJM article of mine here.

48 Comments:

Blogger TMink said...

Training, experience, a head for large economies, unimportant. Physiological differences, supremely important!

Many feminists think that way. They genderfy evertyhing in the most bizarre and bigoted ways.

Trey

8:09 AM, June 13, 2011  
Blogger Deb said...

Plus it always drives me nuts when a news professional uses the term "begging the question" to mean "leads us to question." It's the logical fallacy of circular reasoning.

8:19 AM, June 13, 2011  
Blogger Ern said...

You'd be hard-pressed to find a sex scandal involving a female politician these days, which begs the question, what if there were more women in politics and in positions of power? Would they change the way business is done from Wall Street to Washington and beyond?

First, a big "thank you" to Deb for pointing out the misuse of the term "begs the question", a misuse that has become quite common over the past fifteen years or so.

Would women change the way business is done? What follows is based on my experience of working with and sometimes for women over the past thirty-six years; Of course they would. They have. They aren't any better than men. They are different. They don't, in general, throw objects. They don't throw screaming tantrums, or perhaps they do that in a different way. They do stab others in the back far more often than men do. They fabricate sexual harassment charges. They will complain to their boss or your boss about anything that you do that they don't like, no matter how trivial (and even if you're right).

The women for whom I worked in sizable corporations were, as a group, as good to work for as the men. Some were very good, some were very bad, and most were in between.

After I left the corporate world to become self-employed I worked at a small financial planning firm that was headed by a man when I joined. It was a nice place to work. Several years later, he retired, and a woman replaced him. Within a period of weeks, the firm turned into a terrible place to work. The remaining partners, both of whom were female, would say in a meeting that the firm would no longer do something. Within a week, the firm would do exactly that. When I'd point that out, I was invariably told why the firm did it. There was no recognition that when you say you aren't going to do something, you don't do it. The concept of being able to trust something that they said did not, as far as I could tell, exist in their minds. I left soon after that, trying to explain that I couldn't trust what they said, and I don't think that they understand why to this day.

8:43 AM, June 13, 2011  
Blogger JG said...

Men seem to be at the extremes: doing most of the inventing and discovering and building, but also being Jack the Ripper and Ted Bundy.

I think it's because they DO STUFF in the world more than women. If the argument is that women are better because they do less - good and bad - then a coma patient would be the best person in the world. Absolutely nothing good or bad. I guess we should all strive to be coma patients.

8:44 AM, June 13, 2011  
Blogger ZorroPrimo said...

Typical lib/fem reasoning: I'm not a rapist; therefore, I'd run the country better.

Another blog posed the question, "Why don't women politicos have sex scandals?" Answer: There are too few yet. When there are more, there will be massive scandals.

Michael Crichton pointed this out in Disclosure. The number of female sexual harassment suits is increasing in even higher (get that?) proportion to the number of females in the executive ranks.

When women take over an arena, they will fuck up, but not like men. They will fuck up like women.

9:23 AM, June 13, 2011  
Blogger JG said...

I have seen a strange phenomenon more than a few times:

Men starting up a company, sometimes with a few other men, and then the wife of the lead partner or CEO demanding (after the company grows to a certain size) to also be in on the business decisions.

So she becomes the "Vice President of I Hope She Doesn't Fuck Anything Up" and spends her days exercising her power for her own vanity (as she assumes the men are doing). She bosses around people lower in the company, and others have to constantly clean up her mess without it being too obvious. She may even only have a college degree in elementary education, and work experience of being a housewife, but that doesn't stop her from getting right in the middle of business and engineering decisions.

I've seen them wreck otherwise viable companies. I have no idea why men who are otherwise smart in business allow this to happen - but they do.

9:50 AM, June 13, 2011  
Blogger Sandeep said...

Strangely, these are also people who fight profiling of Muslims etc.

10:29 AM, June 13, 2011  
Blogger Peregrine John said...

Exchanges like that are demonstrative also of why the term is "bitch slap."

JG: At least it's not a new phenomenon. Even Solomon had issues along the same lines.

10:40 AM, June 13, 2011  
Blogger Bob Wallace said...

Most of the women I know don't want to work for women, and would rather work for a man. Most of the men I know don't want to work for women, based on working for them, and would rather work for a man. I'd had women specifically asked to be trained by men, requesting to be transferred from the women who were training them.

10:58 AM, June 13, 2011  
Blogger ZorroPrimo said...

@Bob W: Steve Moxon covers that phenomenon in his book, "The Woman Racket."

11:16 AM, June 13, 2011  
Blogger Molly said...

If you read the transcript or listen to the video, you'll see that what's especially shameful is the matter-of-fact, non-self-conscious way they assert gender superiority. "We all know this is true; I certainly don't expect it to be a controversial point of view; all my friends feel the same way." One can imagine a similar tone in discussions about racial superiority and the logic of slavery.

12:21 PM, June 13, 2011  
Blogger randian said...

I think feminism is why we don't see more sex scandals involving women. To the average (very liberal) journalist, it simply isn't acceptable to publicize women's sexual indiscretions. To do so would imply that women shouldn't able to do anything they want in the sexual realm, something very much against liberal thinking. Men, of course, are fair game. Remember that liberal bias isn't just in how stories are worded, but in what stories are chosen to be printed.

It is rather similar to how the press protects Obama and other liberal politicians.

12:51 PM, June 13, 2011  
Blogger JG said...

I've seen an explosion lately in female high school teachers screwing their students. That sounds like sexual misconduct to me.

The media have recently started to publicize it, and the legal system has started to prosecute it. I talked to a relative about it, and he brought up a teacher I never would have suspected from decades ago - it's always happened, but women used to get a free ride.

1:37 PM, June 13, 2011  
Blogger ZorroPrimo said...

randian has a good point re lib journalists and female scandals.

Why hasn't N.O.W. made a peep re Weiner's misbehavior?

Because he's a Dem! Now divvy up the Rep and Dem women in politics. Who is in the majority? Who's going to get the pass for misbehavior? I'll bet there are women who have made horrific scandals that were covered up by the liberal press.

2:04 PM, June 13, 2011  
Blogger DADvocate said...

Too much estrogin that room, for sure.

Some of the same qualities that get men into sex scandals, etc are the same qualities that help them be successful and innovators. Risk-taking for instance.

I wonder if Amanpour has ever noticed that there' usually a woman, or more, involved in those sex scandals. Plus, when women like Madonna have sexual escapades with young men, she's expressing her sexuality.

2:39 PM, June 13, 2011  
Blogger Art Deco said...

Prominent politicians tend to be folk well into middle age. In those age groups, sexual misconduct is found predominantly among men. That predominance would not be found at other points in the life-cycle. Twenty-eight-year-old hussies may seduce prominent politicians. They very seldom are prominent politicians. The way things have been going, you are eventually going to have a considerable collection of women politicians in their late fifties who have a mess of dirt in their past. Because it is in their past, it will tend to attract little attention.

6:00 PM, June 13, 2011  
Blogger F15C said...

@Molly said...

"If you read the transcript or listen to the video, you'll see that what's especially shameful is the matter-of-fact, non-self-conscious way they assert gender superiority. "We all know this is true; I certainly don't expect it to be a controversial point of view; all my friends feel the same way." One can imagine a similar tone in discussions about racial superiority and the logic of slavery."

Absolutely and it was more disturbing when viewed. How did we as a society get to this point?

My wife and I watched the program and were both taken aback by the overwhelming chauvinism, bigotry and belief in male inferiority and how measured, practiced and matter of fact was the delivery of such disturbing, sexist tripe.

After the some of the most sexist and bigoted discussion I've heard in some time, they broke for commercials which just continued the tone featuring what has become the standard mantra of advertisers: "Women are omniscient, supreme goddesses who can do anything and actually do everything that is done; men are inferior morons who can't find their butts with both hands without the help of a woman."

7:11 PM, June 13, 2011  
Blogger Memphis Steve said...

I was glad to learn that Rush Limbaugh, never one to stand up specifically for the male sex, played the audio from this very chauvinistic discussion of female supremacy, bringing it to the attention of a much larger audience who might otherwise never have even heard it. And also, when Rush points it out, it embarrasses the many politicians who quietly embrace this same thinking while simultaneously claiming to be conservative Republicans (Orrin Hatch springs to mind here, the big douche.)

If any male reporter on any network were to ever say anything even remotely as sexist as this, but in favor of men, he and everyone else in the room would be fired that same day, without hesitation. But this woman and her Nazi friends won't be fired, because the attitudes they expressed are precisely the attitude of both ABC and their parent corporation, Disney.

8:12 PM, June 13, 2011  
Blogger kmg said...

You'd be hard-pressed to find a sex scandal involving a female politician these days,

BECAUSE, women in politics are already many years past the age at which they would be considered attractive.

Plus, men don't throw themsevles at powerful women the way women throw themselves at powerful men. Were young British men putting up posters of Margaret Thatcher.

God, Christiane Amanpour is stupid.

8:44 PM, June 13, 2011  
Blogger peternolan9 said...

Women condone perjury, kidnapping, extortion, theft and child abuse on a GRAND SCALE.

9:09 PM, June 13, 2011  
Blogger ZorroPrimo said...

Yes, she always was.

9:10 PM, June 13, 2011  
Blogger peternolan9 said...

"God, Christiane Amanpour is stupid."

She is one more Illuminati agent.

9:11 PM, June 13, 2011  
Blogger Joseph said...

It's quite simple. These male politicians are having affairs with female non-politicians. Obviously, we have to get women out of non-politics.

10:25 PM, June 13, 2011  
Blogger Trust said...

Though most public offices are held by men, the fact remains that women are the majority of voters and over the past couple of generations we've been migrating from a patriarchal, monogamous, capitalist society into a matriarchal, hypergamous, socialist society. Most of our social problems (illegitimacy, crime, debt, the welfare state, government overstepping) have exploded during this time.

Are women worse than men? No, of course not. Are women, like men, capable of royally messing things up? Yes.

11:28 PM, June 13, 2011  
Blogger kmg said...

Are women worse than men? No, of course not.

'Of course not'? I say they are worse.

Women consistently vote in a way that gives nary a regard for the basic principles of a first-world society.

Also, there are very few tasks a woman can do with greater competence than a 12-year-old boy.

That is not 'sexist'. It is true, as we see every day.

2:13 AM, June 14, 2011  
Blogger Trust said...

@kmg said...I say they are worse. Women consistently vote in a way that gives nary a regard for the basic principles of a first-world society.
______

I definitely think their voting habits and effects on social structure are worse. I wasn't limiting my comment to just that. I was just speaking generally about human nature. Men and women are very different, and the political implications of each are far different.

3:06 AM, June 14, 2011  
Blogger kmg said...

Men and women are very different,

I'll put a finer point on it.

Men build. Women consume.

Men created civilization, in spite of women.

To the extent that either gender still behaves in a manner unchanged from 10,000 BC, men are not the culprits. Women write love letters to serial killers, effectively proving that they still value men in terms of metrics consistent with life in 10,000 BC, rather than 2011 AD.

5:01 AM, June 14, 2011  
Blogger TMink said...

kmg, I respectfully disagree. I think there are as many good women as men and that the genders are morally equivalent. I see the problem as unjust laws and bigoted world views like feminism that create the problem, not the inherent inferiority of women.

Trey

9:35 AM, June 14, 2011  
Blogger george said...

It is odd that since almost all of these scandals involve a woman and a married man that it is only the man they are criticizing. That would make the rate of scandalous behavior engaged in by the two sexes exactly the same.

It takes two to tango. Even Weiner found lots of reciprocation and he more or less flashed his junk at anyone that passed him by.

9:51 AM, June 14, 2011  
Blogger ZorroPrimo said...

We might be forgetting two central points: (1) the overwhelming majority of feminist BS is played out in the media, with gov't a close concomitant second, and (2) we live in a society in which the heart of the economy is advertising.

If you watch, you will see this played out on FoxNews, MSNBC, CBS...ALL of them. Newspapers, magazines, TV, movies, etc. Right wing or left, it doesn't matter.

Over 70% of the disposable income in the US is in the hands of the female. It's like cat food. The cat eats the food, but the commercials are directed at whoever BUYS the Friskies. If only men drove pickup trucks, but only women BOUGHT them, Chevy ads would play like tampon commercials. And media pays its bills according to advertising revenue.

NEVER LET THE WOMAN TURN THE CHANNEL! That's how you lose your ad budgets.

Therefore, no matter what the political, social, economic, environmental...whatever...issue is, you must always always always make sure that your female viewer feels good about herself because of your discussion. Men MUST be the problem. If a married man has sex with a married woman (not his wife), it MUST be a "male problem," rather than a "takes two to tango" problem. SHE must NEVER be the cause of social ills, because she'll feel bad about herself...and she'll turn the channel.

A great deal of feminist sexist bullshit is purely a chase for money.

The fact is, if women were not allowed to decide the color of the curtains, most of this crap would vanish like cigarette smoke in a hurricane.

11:46 AM, June 14, 2011  
Blogger Bob Wallace said...

@ZorroPrimo

Just as bad, I have noticed a clique of women will try to run off new hires (women), apparently out of some sort of jealousy.

12:02 PM, June 14, 2011  
Blogger ZorroPrimo said...

@BobW: For every male jerk a working woman has to put up with, there are 100 women who will happily see her thrown under a bus. There is nothing a women hates more in the workplace than a prettier woman.

Moxon has a picture from The Devil Wears Prada in his book. Meryl Streep (middle aged) and young, pretty Anne Hathaway. When a man comes into the office, who does he want to bang?

Meryl knows this.

12:22 PM, June 14, 2011  
Blogger kmg said...

I see the problem as unjust laws and bigoted world views like feminism that create the problem, not the inherent inferiority of women.

Men don't write love letters to serial killers, nor are men so hot on partial-birth abortion.

All traditional religions kept tighter controls on women than men. They crafted these policies on centuries of trial and error, and very different parts of the world all came to the same conclusions that the female gender was the one that required more serious civilizing.

4:14 PM, June 14, 2011  
Blogger BobH said...

"All traditional religions kept tighter controls on women than men. They crafted these policies on centuries of trial and error, and very different parts of the world all came to the same conclusions that the female gender was the one that required more serious civilizing."

You're kidding, I hope. If you're not, get yourself a textbook on evolutionary psychology.

7:33 AM, June 15, 2011  
Blogger br549 said...

I do wonder what's up with women writing love letters to psychos locked up in prison. And on occasion, eventually marrying them.

Is it really possible to be that lonely?

7:46 AM, June 15, 2011  
Blogger ZorroPrimo said...

Heya Bob

Most of us here are fairly well up on the whole EP thingy.

kmg has no reason to apologize.

7:47 AM, June 15, 2011  
Blogger BobH said...

"Most of us here are fairly well up on the whole EP thingy."

I very much doubt that.

9:20 AM, June 15, 2011  
Blogger ZorroPrimo said...

Please yourself Bob.

9:33 AM, June 15, 2011  
Blogger TMink said...

kmg, I see your points, but Jesus was scandalous in his beavior toward women in that he spoke to them in the street and counted them among his friends. In his culture, a Jewish man would not speak to a women in public, much less touch her for fear of becoming ritually unclean.

Jesus also announced his divinity to a Samaratin woman who was ostracized from her community due to her sexual past. Yet, he chose her.

Of course Paul wrote about appropriate roles for women in the church, but then he was writing to cultures with temple prostitutes. Many religions due place tight control on women, but Christianity, Biblical and Jesus focused Christianity does not fit as neatly into that pattern.

I think we just have differing viewpoints on the matter as I see the problems with contemporary women as more cultural than you.

Thanks for the discussion.

Trey

9:43 AM, June 15, 2011  
Blogger BobH said...

This may be off topic but, then again, maybe it isn't.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/arts/people-argue-just-to-win-scholars-assert.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

9:44 AM, June 15, 2011  
Blogger SGT Ted said...

I just saw a puff peice on the mother of Ahhnold love child. This woman was also married, and lied to her own husband about the father of their child. The propagandists were practically sobbing with joy that Maria Shriver had forgiven the woman.

THAT is whats wrong with the culture. It has become completely bigotted towards men, who are cads and blackguards when they cheat, but the women who were just as disloyally engaged in infidelity, are victims to be forgiven and redeemed.

11:20 AM, June 15, 2011  
Blogger JG said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3:38 PM, June 15, 2011  
Blogger kmg said...

Bob doesn't really have any substantive points, does he.

All he can say is "I doubt you know much" and "You're kidding, right.".

Bob has a lot to learn.

3:02 AM, June 16, 2011  
Blogger kmg said...

I do wonder what's up with women writing love letters to psychos locked up in prison. And on occasion, eventually marrying them.

Is it really possible to be that lonely?


It is not that they are lonely. It is that the prisoner, being a violent man who does not conform to society, exhibits traits attractive to women. Women behave this way in the absence of a strict societal control on them (which used to exist in any society that survived for more than a generation).

Once the controls are lifted on female behavior, the serial killer becomes more valuable to women than the engineer.

3:04 AM, June 16, 2011  
Blogger golddigger said...

I sneezed up a perfectly good cup of tea when I read the title of this post. It burned quite fiercely. But too much estrogen in the workplace can be a problem; there’s no denying that.

I speak from experience, as I've had the opportunity to closely observe the social dynamics of quite a few 100% female workplaces. I usually describe them as gigantic superheated wombs, the inhabitants of which are all amped up on estrogen at twice the legal limit. Nonprofit corporations in general tend to be staffed by female employees and volunteers except at the highest levels of executive management. Nonprofits devoted to traditional charity work - domestic violence shelters, soup kitchens, etc. – are almost solely feminine concerns, especially the little ones (though in fairness men do pay for a lot of it). As these are my clients, and I base my observations on them, there is likely some selection bias.

Removing men from the equation has the benefit of eliminating the subtle and often subconscious competition for male attention that's behind so much of the cattiness and petty female feuding one detects in mixed workplaces. Guards come down and women form stronger, deeper bonds. There are at least two, usually three, generations represented, and there is much nurturing, advice-giving, sharing of stories and rushing to provide support and comfort when anyone has suffered a reversal of fortune. They're constantly baking cakes, cookies and fudge to bring in and share; the lunch room refrigerator is stuffed with ice cream (and frozen yogurt, as 75% of the employees are on a diet at any given moment); and every time somebody walks in the door she is forced to eat a baked good of some sort or forever stand accused of having "issues with food" (which I find rather ironic).

On the other hand. The emotional intensity of such places is turned up to 11 AT ALL TIMES. I never know when I walk in a client's door whether I'll find the place is in dire crisis, up in arms over some outrage, sunk in deep depression over a grievous disappointment or whether the roof's blown off in celebration of some miracle.

Everybody, paid or not, is wildly passionate about their mission and intensely devoted to their people. They come up with great programing ideas and are able to work successfully with severely damaged and unattractive people that most of society considers garbage. That's an ineffably good thing.

But practical? Efficient? Able to think strategically about long-term financial planning? Comfortable reasoning with two dimensional logic? No. Regrettably, horribly, that is somehow part of my job. I must play dad. I'm the wet-blanket, budget-flapping spoilsport. And I *hate* being that. It's so not a good look for me. I used to get to be the office female and storm out of rooms and be irrational and impractical. Karma perhaps.

In the end, I guess I think that most undertakings can benefit from the combined efforts of men and women, and that traditionally masculine and traditionally feminine traits compliment each other. Nature's not an idiot, you know.

7:23 AM, June 16, 2011  
Blogger Tscottme said...

It's just another example of the commie-libs claiming they want one thing (equality of the sexes) because of an important principle. The truth is the commie-libs aren't opposed to discrimination, but they use the demand for equality as a bludgeon to attack Western Civ. They aren't opposed to sexual harassment but they are opposed to their opponent having impure thoughts so their opponent must resign, if not horse-whipped. The ACLU isn't so much aggressive promoters of civil-rights but they use the demand for rights as a sledghammer to destroy the system.

3:56 PM, June 17, 2011  
Blogger Doc Merlin said...

@JG the reason for the VP thing is that men care about women, and most men are too cowardly to say no to their wives.

8:43 AM, June 19, 2011  
Blogger Doc Merlin said...

@KMG:

I disagree, without women civilization would not have been created. Women gave men impetus for civilization.

8:45 AM, June 19, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home