Tag Archives: Sexism

State Street Hypocrites

The Wall Street Journal recently reported in one of those typical feel-good-right-side-of-history stories, written almost always by its female reporters, that financial firm State Street, based in, where else, Boston, is insisting that companies it does business with put more women on those company’s boards and that it would vote against board members who were insufficiently enthusiastic with such causes.

It’s giving companies a year to comply. Or else, I guess.

The CEO of State Street Global Advisors, one Ronald O’Hanley, not a woman, said, oddly,“If someone could convince us that the absence of diversity or gender diversity is not a problem, we’re leaving that open. Will they? I doubt it.”

So, Ronnie, would that little bit of business philosophy include State Street Global Advisors own “Leadership Team”? It’s a regular Boys Club — 23 men to 5 women. It’s parent company, State Street, features 62 men and 18 women in its “Leadership Team.”

Perhaps some of those chaps will be leaving and be replaced by someone with her sex organs on the inside? (An odd way to measure qualifications for employment in a financial company.)


Hhhhmmmmm, the classic liberal behavior, do as I say not as I do; AKA hypocrisy.

What’s changing, increasingly, is that the liberals that have take over so much of American business are willing to employ those businesses as weapons against other Americans. They are also abandoning their fiduciary duties in service of liberalism, fascism and socialism.

But back to that March 7 story. It deploys the usual weepy statistics about the lack of women on boards and how those companies with women do so much better than the small handful that don’t have any; or at least they did several years ago when the “study” conducted by State Street (surprise!) said so.

The story has one last kiss — a picture of a Dega-esque statue that State Street planned to place in front of the famous Wall Street bulls statue. I gather she’s supposed to face them like that lone Chinese man faced the tanks in Tiananmen Square. Subtlety isn’t exactly a liberal specialty.

Historical accuracy isn’t one either. But then history doesn’t serve as history for history’s sake or to be learned from in the eyes of the liberal but rather slaved to the propaganda mission and if it has to be plasticized and recast into different forms as if it were Play-Doh, then so be it; it served its purpose.


Gender Studies. What’s It Good For?

If you’ve been following the harrowing plight of the special snowflakes that now dominate our college campuses, you might have heard about a field of study called “Gender Studies.” Yes, you can get a degree in this “discipline.” It’s often combined with its grandmother, one of the pioneers in ludicrous studies, Women’s Studies.

So, what does one study in Gender Studies? It doesn’t seem to have much to do with biology or medicine. Until just recently there wasn’t much in the way of thought about it all. There were no great discoveries that changed anything. Had everyone before missed something?

It really seems to be about anger. Frustration. Confusion (the student’s) and confusing others (‘Hey, mom and dad, guess what? I’m not a boy and I’m not a girl… By the way, I need more tuition money.’) Viewing oneself as a victim is encouraged as is grievance-mongering. Lots of grievance-mongering and making alliances with other grievance-mongers. And lots of self-affirmation, self-esteem-building.

All of that is leavened with a sense of entitlement and energized with an arrogance that is astounding. Yet, they consider themselves victims of oppressive powers.

The reality is that there isn’t much to learn but there is a lot of navel gazing, attitude adjustment, group hugging, etc.

There are no “Yes or no” questions on the tests. I doubt there are any tests since those are probably considered a false construct of the heteronormative oppressive patriarchy.

All Gender Studies really is is very expensive four-year (or more if you go for the grad degree) therapy.

And amazingly a lot of schools are involved in this academic fraud. It’s another of the multiplying the easy-peasy indulgent “studies” courses to peddle to the precious snowflakes and continue to expand the Education-Industrial Complex.

So, what does it prepare you for (besides being a lifetime basket case)? Not much. Certainly nothing productive. The likely destinations? Academia, government and the burgeoning grievance and diversity industry. In many ways all it does is prepare the person to promote and create more people just like them while destroying the healthy parts of society. Kind of like a virus in the body.

NFL: Fight “Discrimination” by Actually Discriminating

ESPN has a nauseating story, “Roger Goodell: Women Will Interview for Open Executive Jobs.” This is an extension of the NFL’s repellent and racist “Rooney Rule,” now turned sexist as well.

I don’t have anything against women interviewing for the jobs. The NFL likely hires from outside for executive suite jobs all the time so it should consider interviewing all sorts of qualified candidates. Not every job in the NFL executive office would require football experience. But one gets the suspicious feeling that there is something else going on here.

The NFL already has plenty of women at the HQ — a number of them in do-nothing or mischief-making jobs. An example is Anna Isaacson, a liberal who has the no doubt well-paying job of Vice President for Social Responsibility. VP of “Social Responsibility”? Talk about a mischief-making job designed to funnel money to a liberal activist.

Then there’s a whole gaggle of women involved in the NFL’s “domestic violence” campaign. Isaacson seemed to be driving the bus in the whole Greg Hardy episode. They also have women at the top of Marketing and Public Policy, along with the CIO.

NFL Commissioner, the hapless Roger Goodell said, “Last but not least, it’s management, and when I say that, it’s about diversity in our management. We believe in diversity… We believe we’re better as an organization when we have good people at the table. We have great people at the table. We’re also seeing it on the field.”

So, Rog, we really gonna be seein’ “diversity” on the field as well? Yeah, I didn’t think so, you flaming hypocrite.

But then they are pushing teams to hire female coaches for jobs that they could in no-way have any experience in. We’re not talking here about nutrition jobs or something not involved in actual football; where a non-football background and experience can be very important. How many women played high school, college or pro football? That’s kind of valuable experience for these jobs. A person would really have to be superqualified in other things to be hired over people who have actual experience in the job. This is all just more politically correct waste. America wastes so many resources in this type pretend nonsense; much of it forced by government edict.

And the fun continues. The ESPN article says, “Michelle McKenna-Doyle, a senior VP and CIO for the league, said this week the NFL launched a website where interested candidates can create profiles for jobs. That way, even if a position isn’t currently available, the NFL will have a list of women and minority candidates when jobs do become available. McKenna said the league’s internal women’s affinity group conceived of the idea to build the number of women in the pipeline.”

The NFL has an “internal women’s affinity group.” Isn’t that precious. Isn’t that a bit discriminatory?

A website that collects resumes only from select people of a certain sex or skin color? Isn’t that illegal?

How much did you, Mr. (and Ms.) Football Fan, pay for that ticket again?

Apparently all this was announced at the NFL’s “Women’s Summit.” Yeah, they have one. Why? I have no rational idea. Every industry has them; usually many of them. My industry, broadcast, has dozens of them. My company gives them free ads in all our publications and on our websites. We also have at least two of them ourselves. We don’t have a “Men’s Summit” or anything like it. Nobody does. You’d be sued out of existence if you did.

Billie Jean King was brought in to speak at the “Women’s Summit.” Why? Oh, yeah, she played tight end for the Packers, remember? Oh, wait, she has nothing to do with the NFL, her game was tennis. But she still makes most every stop on this battle of the sexes circuit.

Condi Rice made an appearance too. I like Condi but she’s the “bipartisan” face at way too many of these events and she’s often shown ingratitude to the very people who didn’t judge her by the color of her skin but rather by the content of her character. “Most of the mentors in my field were white men. They were mostly old white men,” she complained (or sucked up). Condi, honey, you’re a smart girl. Didn’t you notice that a lot of your mentors were Eastern European and Soviet Russian immigrants and defectors; the verty people who lived the life? There’s just not going to be a lot of “brothers” or “sisters” in a group focusing on the old Soviet Union and its satellites. I guess that’s part of the grand racial conspiracy to keep minorities down… Man, that is some conspiracy.

According to Power Line’s Paul Mirengoff the league is legally obligated to not discriminate, which I gather means that it has to fill its positions with 52% women. Does that include the on-field positions?

Does it strike anyone as a little odd that to reach the utopic perfect “nondiscriminatory” gender balance in all jobs we have to empower a regime of pure discrimination?

Oddly, the ESPN article says, “According to the NFL, 30 percent of the employees in the league’s front office are women.” So that’s a problem? That’s considered not enough?

Well, it’s all just another reason why I no longer watch the NFL. Now if I could only stop writing about it!

Shoot the Messenger

Recently a fairly well-known country music format radio consultant Keith Hill spoke his mind – stations that play more male country music stars had higher ratings than those that played a higher proportion of female country music artists.

I have no knowledge as to whether he’s right or wrong, though he said he had the numbers to back that observation up. He added that according to his research, women generally preferred male artists which is what really pushed the numbers to one side. He said that when his clients lowered the female quotient in the mix, their ratings went up.

Well, as you can imagine in this age of there-are-things-you-just-can’t-say, the cow dung hit the fan, or rather hit the consultant.

Nobody wanted to debate the guy. Nobody had their own equally detailed research on country music listening preferences and ratings. Nobody wanted to say that at their station, with plenty of women in the lineup, they were satisfied with their ratings or they ruled the local roost. Nope. The messenger had to be shouted down, with the implied response that what he said simply couldn’t be true because… Something.

Nobody offered to say, “Well, that’s your opinion and I think your wrong,” and then walk away.

Hill’s being accused of “discrimination.” Obviously some people don’t understand the definition of discrimination. Or, possibly more likely in these days of dumbed-down social intelligence and discourse, they’ve stretched their definition of “discrimination” to mean pretty much “anything that doesn’t benefit them.”

Country music artist Martina McBride snapped at him from her Twitter redoubt (Can I say ‘snapped’ in the same sentence with a woman these days?). Then she made the brilliant point in an interview that famous female artists were, well, famous, and many had had hit records, therefore Hill must be wrong.

Miranda Lambert issued a few expletives. Nothing like perpetuating that “emotional” woman stereotype.

Jennifer Nettles, best known for fronting Sugarland, had to insert her “vagina” into the argument, as if that somehow settled the argument. She offered nothing else.

And other female artists, some with hits and some obscure kept throwing out the names of female artists with a hit record or two and thought that somehow was convincing.

The context of Hill’s point was that there were female artists who had great records and hits but on a larger scale, if you want better ratings, when you modify a playlist it would be better to lean to marginal male artists over marginal female artists.

Such fine points never matter to the mob.

All that was missing was a chain of hand-holding female country musicians surrounding Ryman Auditorium and singing “We Shall Overcome.”

Country Music Television Senior Vice President Leslie Fram should have had enough sense to stay out of the pissing contest but she had to take sides. She stated that it was “just not true.” She failed to provide any counter evidence other than simply invoking it.

But what if he’s right – at least for now? Ooooh, can’t think that… Why, why, that just wouldn’t be fair…

Hill has so far stuck to his guns, “We’re trying to get the biggest possible audience… We’re not thinking about gender fairness, we’re just trying to make money.”

I’m sure we’ll soon be treated to Mr. Hill in a proverbial sack cloth begging forgiveness for hurting anyone’s feelings and pledging to not only burn his research but insist that his clients play more female artists.

Why do I think that if Hill had said that stations playing more female artists had higher ratings no one would have said anything? Or possibly that if he had said that playing male artists brought ratings down he’d be lionized as speaking truth to power; he was leading the “brave new wave and future of country music, more women!” NPR would cluck; he might even get a profile in the New York Times as breaking down the Grand Ole Opry glass ceiling with supportive quotes from Gloria Steinem, Sheryl Sandberg, Sen. Barbara Boxer and Elton John (none of whom have any idea who Hill is).

Do people really believe that music sales break down exactly along gender lines or exactly at 50-50? Seriously? If you divide any group activity like sales along two points, it’s highly likely that one side will be larger than another. But math and stats are hard (and I say that as a liberal arts grad).

After her hissy fit (can I say ‘hissy fit’ in the same sentence as mentioning a woman?), Lambert stumbled onto something, wholly by accident. “I am gonna do everything in my power to support and promote female singer/songwriters in country music. Always.” Good for her. Do it. That’s what the free market is all about. Put your money where your mouth is. Support what you like. Maybe you’ll discover some great female artists. There are plenty of unknown but deserving artists of both sexes out there.

But how is that much different than what Hill said?

I guess some sexism is more acceptable than other.

Here’s my pitch – Martina, Jennifer, Miranda, et al, you gals have some money between you and you’re completely convinced in your beliefs, right, so buy a radio station or two and program nothing but female artists or mostly women. If you draw well, sit back and count your bucks. You’ll be satisfying a market need and that’s what it’s all about. I personally tend to prefer female singers myself.

And if your station brings up the rear, admit you were wrong and then shut up. I don’t mean completely shut up, just concentrate on singing.

Somehow, I don’t think that’s going to happen.

Hey, girls, here’s a question – how come there aren’t any unattractive young (and middle age) female country music artists? Just asking…