Women at Work

Staying on the subject of empowered women, there’s a lengthy video over at Breitbart showing senior Google managers talking about how they reacted to Trump’s election. The video is generating a lot of comments because people see it as proof that Google is so much in bed with the Democrats they might as well be considered part of their campaign; presumably we’d see equal numbers of comments if Sir Alex Ferguson was suddenly revealed to be a Manchester United fan.

My interest, however, is in this segment:

Here we have the CFO of one of the world’s largest and most powerful companies breaking down in tears at the recollection of the night a presidential election didn’t go the way she wanted it to. It would be bad enough if she started snivelling at the result, but to start welling up at the recollection of it, as if she were talking about the time she had a miscarriage or her sister died? This woman is mentally unstable, there’s no other way to put it, yet here she is at the head of a giant corporation.

I’ve mentioned it before, but one of the arguments misogynistic old dinosaurs used to make when women were first proposed for higher management was their minds were too feeble to handle the pressures and gravity of the job. Well, judging by Ruth Porat’s performance, perhaps they were onto something. Did John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, Richard B. Mellon, and Henry Ford hire CFOs who broke down in tears when discussing the previous presidential election? No, because they were serious men living in serious times. Not only are today’s supposed captains of industry unserious people, but we are no longer living in serious times. This isn’t to say women shouldn’t become CFOs of major corporations of even CEOs, but women who lack the mental fortitude to cope with election results have no business occupying such roles. You can be damned sure Pepsi’s Indra Nooyi doesn’t behave like this.

Which brings me onto this, which popped up on my Twitter feed now I’m in Australia:

Now I know this is a promoted Tweet from some grifting law firm looking to fill its pockets with taxpayer cash, but let’s take the ludicrous claims at face value and see where they lead us.

1. Sexual harassment at work has been banned for thirty years, but hasn’t reduced.

2. Women have no faith existing structures will protect them from sexual harassment at work.

3. Half of all women experience sexual harassment at work.

What this is telling us is that men and women cannot work together, something Jordan Peterson rather mischievously suggested in an interview with Vice. If a minority of women were being harassed but otherwise the existing structures were fine for the vast majority of both sexes, then the solution would be to deal with the handful of offenders. But if half of all women are being sexually harassed at work despite it being illegal for thirty years, the solution is obvious: keep men and women separated for clearly they cannot work together. Of course, the shysters in the video think the solution is to restructure society in a manner which makes them richer and more powerful, which is why they’ve exaggerated the problem to an absurd degree. But if the problem is what they say it is, then we need segregated workplaces. Women can still hold the prestigious professional posts they believe they’re entitled to, but it will have to be in the company of other women; the men will be over there, isolated from any opportunity to sexually harass a co-worker.

As someone who has no problem with smart, capable women holding down professional positions in any field, I find it difficult to see how the behaviour of women like Ruth Porat and campaigns such as We Fight For Fair do anything other than set their cause back years, if not decades. If women want to advance and be taken seriously in professional fields, they need to distance themselves from this sort of lunacy.

Share

28 thoughts on “Women at Work

  1. “Here we have the CFO of one of the world’s largest and most powerful companies breaking down in tears at the recollection of the night a presidential election didn’t go the way she wanted it to”

    I’m not so sure. It might be a display of faked emotion in order to show how politically correct and sensitive she is, bearing in mind that for her particular constituency an emotional video is worth a thousand pages of policy and analysis. I bet her loopy softness doesn’t extend into other areas of her work. I bet if she needed to, she would fuck you and your career and your mortgage into a distant memory and remain dry-eyed.

  2. “…I find it difficult to see how the behaviour of women like Ruth Porat and campaigns such as We Fight For Fair do anything other than set their cause back years, if not decades. “

    Spot on! Today’s ‘feminist crusaders’ are nothing of the sort, any more than the modern anti-racism campaigner could hold a candle to those who fought segregation in the Deep South.

  3. It might be a display of faked emotion in order to show how politically correct and sensitive she is,

    I could buy that, but it would make her no more suitable for the position if that were indeed the case.

    I bet if she needed to, she would fuck you and your career and your mortgage into a distant memory and remain dry-eyed.

    We could ask James Damore for his view.

  4. In her interview with Jordan Peterson, Camile Paglia made the point that men and women’s domestic and work lives were always completely separated…untill about 30-40 years ago. So of course putting everyone together in an office is going to cause problems. It’s good discussion, find and watch it if you can.

  5. “It might be a display of faked emotion in order to show how politically correct and sensitive she is, bearing in mind that for her particular constituency an emotional video is worth a thousand pages of policy and analysis. I bet her loopy softness doesn’t extend into other areas of her work. I bet if she needed to, she would fuck you and your career and your mortgage into a distant memory and remain dry-eyed.”

    Even if true, this is hardly a great template for a person who is supposed to be a leader of a large organisation – I’m quite happy destroy you without so much as a second thought or ounce of remorse, but I’m happy to fake emotion so you don’t think I’m a cold hearted serial killer really. Something of a problem for a ‘leader’ don’t you think?

  6. I’d prefer it if they just came out and said they didn’t give a fuck about ideology, but that they already had deals in place to benefit Google from a Democrat win.

  7. Jim, not really. Most of these people who aspire to such positions tend to be sociopaths. The good ones are better at hiding those traits.

    RlJ, Nike have signed up that Kaepernick bloke for a marketing campaign. More of a middle finger to Trump than anything to do with Kaepernick’s footballing prowess.

    The longer I work the more convinced I am that people who rise to the top of corporations are just a bunch of cunts.

  8. Jim:

    “Even if true, this is hardly a great template for a person who is supposed to be a leader of a large organisation – I’m quite happy destroy you without so much as a second thought or ounce of remorse, but I’m happy to fake emotion so you don’t think I’m a cold hearted serial killer really. Something of a problem for a ‘leader’ don’t you think?”

    Yes, I agree it’s a “problem” – but not for her. Most of the “high powered” career bitches I have known used the standard corporate tactics of bullying, and also included emotional incontinence when the need arose. It’s a winning combination, because the implication is that if some bloke has made such a “tough” woman cry and freak out, then he must have been fighting dirty and it’s off to HR for re-education or worse.

  9. The longer I work the more convinced I am that people who rise to the top of corporations are just a bunch of cunts.

    Lol – I think, when you get right down to it, that this is basically what’s going on.

  10. Men also have changed.
    Example: I worked in the N Sea, where women offshore were rare (<1/50?) yet never saw or heard of any sexual harassment. This despite the often vague status of the woman. (Is she an engineer, a metallurgist or just a record keeper?) How could this be? Surely because there was a code where men were not exactly gallant but policed themselves.
    If sexual harassment is now as ubiquitous as alleged then it may be because men turn a blind eye to it. And just maybe the behaviour of women contributes to this indifference.

  11. So Tim, still looking forward to a long and fruitful career in HR? 🙂

    I respect you more for posting under your real name but I still think you’re mad to do so. What happens the first time you are involved in the dismissal of someone who happens to be a woman, and their lawyer finds this?

  12. “The longer I work the more convinced I am that people who rise to the top of any power structure are just a bunch of cunts”

    Fixed it for you.

  13. I’m still not used to the shift that occurred where companies have chartered themselves to reshape the world to their particular view rather than serve their customers regardless of their political views. They are essentially giving the middle finger to half their market. They’ve practically become NGO’s. Still, everyone uses their products, so the penalties are small for the big ‘uns. However, even the small startups who barely have a market do this now.

  14. What happens the first time you are involved in the dismissal of someone who happens to be a woman, and their lawyer finds this?

    If any case I’m involved with is so piss-weak that this blog post can be used to undermine it, I’ll deserve whatever happens.

  15. Most places I’ve worked have neatly avoided the problem of sexual harassment by only employing old and/or unattractive women. Also by only employing competent ones, so men daren’t challenge them.

    Given that most women work in the public sector, why aren’t boring civil servants being #meToo’d out of their jobs in droves?

  16. I have to agree with Sam Vara on this one. This woman is simply keeping up with the latest business practices in the field she works in, and among the people she spends her time with.

    When being a victim is an asset, nearly as valuable as an advanced degree from an Ivy League university (and worth MORE than the latter in some circles), the search is on for any opportunity to portray oneself in that way.

    Tim, I wish you well in your new career in HR, though I fear for your safety.

  17. But if the problem is what they say it is, then we need segregated workplaces. Women can still hold the prestigious professional posts they believe they’re entitled to, but it will have to be in the company of other women; the men will be over there, isolated from any opportunity to sexually harass a co-worker.

    All of the Annie Oakley wittering from women is a shit test, and we’re failing it. They’d never allow segregation like this, because despite what they say about women being just as competent as men, male-only workplaces outperform female-only workplaces. The number of women who can repress their natural competitiveness and need for melodrama is vanishingly small.

  18. Scott Adams makes the point that the most remarkable thing about the video is the inference by the Google execs that nobody in the room voted for Trump or even didn’t vote for him but accepted the result.

    As if it needs to be said; that’s a corporate environment, not a rival political party’s office…. allegedly.

  19. Scott Adams makes the point that the most remarkable thing about the video is the inference by the Google execs that nobody in the room voted for Trump or even didn’t vote for him but accepted the result.

    A modern corporation expects and assumes ideological conformity from all its staff.

  20. “A modern corporation expects and assumes ideological conformity from all its staff.”

    I was about to challenge this and say not all but then I thought back over the last half a dozen companies I’ve worked for and came to the conclusion that you had a fair point.

  21. I have no problem with her weeping. It could be a coping mechanism, in which case I’d prefer it to swearing, male or female, any time. What’s unbelievable, to me, is that – Alphabet being a publicly traded company with a market cap of $800-something billion – its co-founder, its CFO and the CEO of its principal subsidiary didn’t even mention shareholder value.

  22. I could buy that, but it would make her no more suitable for the position if that were indeed the case.

    ==========
    And since when has being a manipulative liar been a bar to high corporate office?

  23. If sexual harassment is now as ubiquitous as alleged then it may be because men turn a blind eye to it

    ======
    If.

  24. What’s unbelievable, to me, is that – Alphabet being a publicly traded company with a market cap of $800-something billion – its co-founder, its CFO and the CEO of its principal subsidiary didn’t even mention shareholder value.

    ===========
    That’s because it truly not about money for the company or for them personally, it’s about changing the world baby!

    Or, if you drill deep enough, control.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *