patrick.net

HydroCabron says

I have a theory about female pioneers in male-dominated fields: the successful ones are usually really tough and vicious.

Margaret Thatcher, Marlene Dietrich, Madonna and Sheri Lansing are all pretty Machiavellian people, best avoided in a dark alley. I bet even the men in these firms are dirty, underhanded cut-throat bastards, so she was probably, at a minimum, ultra low-down and dirty.

I think you are right. They said Carly Fiorina was a Bitch. And that it takes a bitch of a woman to make it to the top.

Thatcher was one of the boys. She drank Scotch neat during meetings, never played the female card, would work until 2AM. She embraced the already existing culture, rather than insist the culture change to accommodate "her needs"

thunderlips11 says

Thatcher was one of the boys. She drank Scotch neat during meetings, never played the female card, would work until 2AM. She embraced the already existing culture, rather than insist the culture change to accommodate "her needs"

And managed to raise a family while rising to being the Prime Minister of a country. Same as meg Whitman. Hopefully the rules will change to remove these feminazi inspired laws and accept that people are people.
There is the woman who ripped apart the fetus from another pregnant woman while she was alive and then there is mother Theresa. Just because both are women, doesn't make the fetus ripper equal to Mother Theresa and both don't have to be treated the same.
The same for men or minorities.

Those rules made sense back in the day-not anymore, when we have a black president.

lostand confused says

In today's world, this is just old. You have people like meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina and now in the good old Midwest, GM has a female CEO. I mean come on..

Do you know how many women CEOs are there in S&P 500? Less than 5%. http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-ceos-sp-500

tr6 says

Do you know how many women CEOs are there in S&P 500? Less than 5%. http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-ceos-sp-500

Do you know how many men in the whole world are CEOs? Less than 0.01% So what. It is talent and merit that count. if Meg Whitman and Marissa Mayer can make it-quit making excuses .

Some whine with that cheese?

She was a wee, non hirsute lesbian. If she had been in immense, hirsute lesbian, the jury would have believed her.

I want to know why veterans are not properly represented in the SV? When I was working in the SFBA, I had a chance to visit Facebook and have lunch with some of the engineers. Management said that they "support the troops" and are always looking for veterans to hire. I didn't see or meet any at FB.

BTW, I wasn't all that impressed with some of their developers. I was asking some rather simple questions and a number of these guys could not reply from a technical stand point.

Where is my lawyer....

Ceffer says

non hirsute

Hirsute? I had to look that up. Interesting.

Did you give up your Youtube subscription?

Dan8267 says

The article has no details. It's impossible to tell why the jury decided the way it did or whether or not the decision was right.

A veritable cornucopia of information...
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Ellen+Pao+against+Kleiner+Perkins+Caufield+%26+Byers.
and yet you are now shunning the service..
Looks like CIC's eternal Youtube campaign against you has finally yielded results...

That's what lack of sex, or too much sex will do to a woman.
a delicate balance needs to be attained...

Strategist says

They said Carly Fiorina was a Bitch.

They didn't invite her to the week end get away because she doesn't put out.

thunderlips11 says

Thatcher was one of the boys. She drank Scotch neat during meetings, never played the female card, would work until 2AM. She embraced the already existing culture, rather than insist the culture change to accommodate "her needs"

margaret (may she rot in hell) did prove that it is totally possible to play the game without passing laws which demand that men self-castrate in your presence.

Marissa Mayer wants nothing to do with that form of support. “I never play the gender card,” she says. “The moment you play into that, it’s an issue.”

marissa is confident and competent and yet also really hot. she refuses to do the "boo hoo poor female me" thing because she wants to be judged on her own merits rather than inserting a manipulative layer of legal pressure and guilt to hobble male competitors. perfect model for how things should be imho.

as for why there are 95% male ceo's in large companies, could it (gasp!) have anything to do with the differing levels of aggression and propsensity for leadership between the genders? no, if we were to admit that men and women actually are biologically different, say in levels of testosterone, and that these differences extend to normal and ancient behavioral differences between genders, then we might not get the equality of outcome that feminists are demanding.

the alternative is a fair equality of opportunity where people rise or fall on their own merits, some of which are, yes, biologically determined. the short guy is just never going to get into the NBA. do we need laws demanding the inclusion of short men in the NBA?

as for why there are 95% male ceo's in large companies, could it (gasp!) have anything to do with the differing levels of aggression and propsensity for leadership between the genders? no, if we were to admit that men and women actually are biologically different, say in levels of testosterone, and that these differences extend to normal and ancient behavioral differences between genders, then we might not get the equality of outcome that feminists are demandin

This is why we have so many bubbles and corruption. Too much testosterone competing. There are a number of studies that women fund managers way outperform men. I would not be surprised that if we had more women in power, the world would be less bubbly and would have a bit less corruption.

yet also really hot

Rin, a 4-5 maybe?

tr6 says

This is why we have so many bubbles and corruption. Too much testosterone competing. There are a number of studies that women fund managers way outperform men. I would not be surprised that if we had more women in power, the world would be less bubbly and would have a bit less corruption.

Unfortunately tr6, many men think that the only measure of successful leadership is based on the way that men have done it since the beginning of time. Women will lead differently than men. We are, by nature, more collaborative. Our self-concept doesn't rise and fall based on how our penises measure up against a perceived competitor. Men are hunters; women are gatherers. Both are necessary for balance... However, until women's traits are recognized as valuable in a leadership capacity, male traits will continue to be regarded as superior. Perhaps someday, people will realize that all traits have their value. A woman's bag of "tricks" is different, but it's still a bag of tricks with a capacity to lead.

turtledove says

However, until women's traits are recognized as valuable in a leadership capacity

In asset management, those traits result in nearly 5% annual outperformance. That's huge. Since there are not too many women fund managers, we are comparing the best women against men that on average are probably not as good. I would think that if the fund managers were split more evenly, the out performance would not be this big. Still women's traits might be better for managing money long term and as the society we may recognize that eventually.

turtledove says

Women will lead differently than men. We are, by nature, more collaborative. Our self-concept doesn't rise and fall based on how our penises measure up against a perceived competitor. Men are hunters; women are gatherers.

thank you! yes, men and women are different, and have different strengths. but men are told they may not use their strengths in hyper-competitive environments because then they would likely win, and men must not be allowed to win because that makes women feel bad.

as for male self-concept being derived from competition, that in turn is derived from the universal preference by women for the winning man. men compete because women force men to compete, and always have. so men get very loud and contradictory inputs from women these days:

1. "i want the winning guy" (as it always was)
2. "men are all assholes for trying to be the winner" (recent development)

so what should men do? they have to ignore either either first input or the second one

tr6 says

In asset management, those traits result in nearly 5% annual outperformance. That's huge.

no group cares less about gender than the financial industry. they care about money. they have no loyalty to gender or to anything else, and they will do whatever makes the most money for themselves, all the time. it's brutal and very efficient.

turtledove says

many men think that the only measure of successful leadership is based on the way that men have done it since the beginning of time.

Men lead the way women want them to lead. If men lead the way women CLAIM they want men to lead, no woman would want those men as leaders. They might want them as profit-centers, but not as leaders.

turtledove says

Women will lead differently than men. We are, by nature, more collaborative.

Really? Look at marriage. Marriage is the ultimate small business. These days, women think that marriage consist of "managing" their husbands and collecting the profits of his labor. (Actually, they probably always thought so, but they were much smarter about keeping quiet about it, and did more of their part to support their husbands.) Anyway, are the women "leaders" of marriage "more collaborative" than their husbands, on the average? i don't think so. I see a lot of passive/aggressive behavior later followed by aggressive/aggressive behavior whenever the first method does not garner the desired result. Does that make women better leaders than men? I think not.

no group cares less about gender than the financial industry. they care about money. they have no loyalty to gender or to anything else, and they will do whatever makes the most money for themselves, all the time. it's brutal and very efficient.

You are very naive. if you had experience with financial industry, you would change your opinion.

men compete because women force men to compete

In asset management, that does not work out so well.

turtledove says

However, until women's traits are recognized as valuable in a leadership capacity, male traits will continue to be regarded as superior.

As Patrick indicated, it is WOMEN who value those male traits as being necessary, and then at the same time they complain about them.

The people who control things are still mostly tall WASP guys in polo shirts who golf and know the right people from their families or church.

A few women or short guys can get into that circle, but nothing has really charged since the 1980s. Saying that Margaret Thatcher proves we're all equal now is like saying that rappers or Michael Jordan prove that blacks have equal opportunities: it might be evidence of it, but it's pretty far from proving it.

I don't see the legal system as a remedy for these problems, but I dislike the idea that it's really a meritocracy. Merit is involved, but it's like that kid I knew in school who looked like a university dean in 3rd grade: he's now a university dean. The human race picks people who look like they belong in a role, or who fit in culturally with the others, in addition to weighing merit.

In Hollywood, nearly all studio brass are Jewish. If enough lesbians take over corporate leadership in some sector, then all CEOs and boards in that sector will soon be lesbians - this has happened in some organizations. I have seen this happen enough times: one guy from Mumbai becomes CIO, and soon most management in IT is from India.

thank you! yes, men and women are different, and have different strengths. but men are told they may not use their strengths in hyper-competitive environments because then they would likely win, and men must not be allowed to win because that makes women feel bad.

Just so you know... I don't bemoan men's strengths. They should be used to full capacity. I think it's silly to try to hold people back, male or female. However, when women's traits (as leaders) are viewed as inferior simply because they are different, I think that men shortchange themselves. Different situations are resolved better by certain traits. The worst are the women who try to emulate the male traits they think they need to succeed. It never works, and it fails to use women to their full benefit. Men, too, shouldn't be expected to act more like women. Both should just have respect for their different styles. I think that the competitive, go-for-the-kill, nature of male leaders is threatened by alternatives... As if encouraging different styles is an attack against their style.

justme says

Really? Look at marriage. Marriage is the ultimate small business. These days, women think that marriage consist of "managing" their husbands and collecting the profits of his labor. (Actually, they probably always thought so, but they were much smarter about keeping quiet about it, and did more of their part to support their husbands.) Anyway, are the women "leaders" of marriage "more collaborative" than their husbands, on the average? i don't think so. I see a lot of passive/aggressive behavior later followed by aggressive/aggressive behavior whenever the first method does not garner the desired result. Does that make women better leaders than men? I think not.

For some guys it's a symbiotic relationship as well. Some men are not driven until a woman gets involved in their lives. Whether they realize it or not at the time of their transformation.
It can be subtle or indirect or it can be direct manipulation. Either a man just wanting to be all he can be and pressing his career potentials, or a Woman constantly beating a guys ear to take opportunities.

But who knows perhaps the days of women's vicarious greatness through men proxy is over. These days all they need for mortal self gratification is approval and likes for posting Selfies with a duck face on Instagram. Mere Men are no match for that kind of glory.

The Marriage business has worked for me and my wife for 21 years. She lives a comfortable lifestyle and my brand can afford me more than I would care to earn if I were single and had never married in the first place. All of my single friends that never pursued a family life. Are all living the exact same lifestyle paycheck to paycheck that they were 20 + years ago. I would be living in off season efficiencies and still slinging carpet had I stayed single.

turtledove says

The worst are the women who try to emulate the male traits they think they need to succeed. It never works, and it fails to use women to their full benefit

That is not just women. But men too-it is called being fake. I bet if you met Margaret thatcher in some other time and she was an old maid-she would still be a pitbull. You ever run into some old drunk Russian women -yikes!

Copying haircuts and styles of movie stars or atheletes or buying their name brands for more is one thing. Though I don't see the appeal of a 300# critter walking around with all the name brands-his/her choice -it does not magically transform you into a superstar.

personality, grit, guile, cunning are not things you can fake-to a certain extent yes-but not for ever.

tr6 says

You are very naive. if you had experience with financial industry, you would change your opinion.

i worked for charles schwab for 5 years, and wells fargo for another year. does that count?

i worked for charles schwab for 5 years, and wells fargo for another year. does that count?

In IT or asset management? IT work is the same everywhere.

obviously IT, but i got to know the asset management guys.

obviously IT, but i got to know the asset management guys.

I am sorry that does not quality as having insight in how asset management promotion and politics work.

It's who you know and who you blow.

A simple way to look at Ellen's claim would be as follows:

She was making 500K. Find other guys in the firm that were making the same and compare their returns to hers. Then repeat this with 1.5 M a year guys. If her returns were better than she deserved to get paid more. I thought this is what the case was about.

I heard on CNBC that she brought them Twitter in 2008 and they passed. Then someone else brought it to them in 2010 and they invested. Can someone verify this?

In VC world, one Twitter makes the entire career because you can have 10 other companies fail and the returns from Twitter would cover everything plus more.

here's what the jury was instructed to decide:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/03/27/technology/document-ellen-pao-kleiner-perkins-suit-verdict-form-and-jury-instructions.html

1. "i want the winning guy" (as it always was)

2. "men are all assholes for trying to be the winner" (recent development)

so what should men do? they have to ignore either either first input or the second one

Men will always follow what women really want, which is #1. What women really want is conveyed by which men they choose to have sex.

Dan8267 says

1. "i want the winning guy" (as it always was)


2. "men are all assholes for trying to be the winner" (recent development)

so what should men do? they have to ignore either either first input or the second one

Give me a break!

1) I want the bell of the ball
2) I'm consumed by jealousy when other guys notice her, too

1) I want a woman who is smart and challenges me
2) Her intelligence and ability to articulate ideas emasculates me

1) I want to be with a woman who is half my age
2) She tricked me when after a few years she said he wants to have a family

Men can be just as conflicted about things.

turtledove says

1) I want the bell of the ball

2) I'm consumed by jealousy when other guys notice her, too

Every man wants good sex with an attractive woman, but does not want her cheating on him if he's going to invest in a lifetime relationship. This makes perfect sense. Read The Dangerous Passion: Why Jealousy Is as Necessary as Love and Sex.

Speaking as a man for myself -- obviously no man can speak for all men -- I would not be jealous if other men noticed my hot girlfriend or wife. I'd expect it. The whole point of beauty is that it's hereditary and we all have pretty much the same concept of it. Otherwise, beauty wouldn't be useful and worth the extraordinary costs we're willing to pay to acquire an attractive mate.

I would be jealous if she persuade other men, but that makes sense. Similarly, it makes sense that women seek financially successful men. Children cost a lot of money to raise. I have no problem with women having that criteria as it is sensible and not contradictory like the example Patrick gave.

turtledove says

1) I want a woman who is smart and challenges me

2) Her intelligence and ability to articulate ideas emasculates me

Back when I was into long-term relationships, I pursued intelligent women exclusively. I never found intelligence in another person, man or woman, threatening or emasculating. Intelligence isn't even unique to being human. Why would it be uniquely masculine? It should, in my opinion, be universally attractive as it's never a bad thing to have.

Now that I'm into just short-term relationships, the intelligence of a mate matters far less, but it's still not a negative. Perhaps some men react negatively to it because it's less likely that an intelligent woman will sleep with a guy who's less intelligent, so they view it as an increase risk of failure to mate. Luckily, I don't have that problem.

turtledove says

1) I want to be with a woman who is half my age

2) She tricked me when after a few years she said he wants to have a family

Those aren't contradictory statements. Not all women want to have children. Granted that biologically it doesn't matter what age your partner is if you aren't going to reproduce with her, but that's just the brain looking to satisfy its desires even when they undercut the desires of the genes.

All men want women who's age is the following function.
woman's age = (man's age divided by man's age) * n
where n is some value like 16 to 22 years. That's the formula, like it or not.

turtledove says

Men can be just as conflicted about things.

True, but I don't think that undermines Patrick's point that men are told two contradictory things by women and one of the is a lie. Women don't like non-competitive men. Just look at women talk about Millennial men being unambitious Peter Pans and never growing up because they lack the competitive drive and the accomplishments that come from that.

Dan8267 says

All men want women who's age is the following function.

woman's age = (man's age divided by man's age) * n

where n is some value like 16 to 22 years. That's the formula, like it or not.

lol! at first i thought you had a typo in there.

I believe a woman who says she doesn't want children. As long as she's at least 85.

HydroCabron says

I believe a woman who says she doesn't want children. As long as she's at least 85.

Obviously, you've never been to Japan. Many of the women 18-40 don't want children. And to a lesser extent, the same is happening in America. More married women in U.S. aren't having children.

It's nowhere near the predominate lifestyle, but it's a lot higher today than 40 or 100 years ago.