Misidentified Gender

An article from Vox:

Ever since women started holding political office, American men have been fixated on their clothes.

Yeah, sure. Just like when Theresa May was interviewed at home wearing leather trousers, the cattiness that followed was also from fixated men. Uh-huh.

(Via Steve Sailer, who notes it’s about as plausible as: “Ever since men started playing golf, American women have been fixated on their golf course architecture.”)


State of the Union Dressup

I’m seeing a pattern here:

Behind him, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sat in a white suit jacket and blouse. Before him, a block of female lawmakers donned a range of white outfits and visibly unimpressed expressions. Even his daughter Tiffany was pictured in white, with social media speculating that the choice may have been more than a coincidence.
President Trump’s State of the Union address was flooded with the color white.
The bold statement, initiated by the House Democratic Women’s Working Group, saw dozens of lawmakers coordinate their attire as a show of solidarity among women. Democrats taking part included newly-elected Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, who was seen wearing a white cape, and Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, who wore a white vest and trousers paired with a blue hijab and red shirt.

Oh yes:

Women are wearing black to the 2018 Golden Globe Awards to protest sexual harassment and raise awareness for Time’s Up, a new initiative fighting sexual misconduct in Hollywood and beyond. As the stars take the red carpet for tonight’s ceremony, they explain the powerful reasons why they went all-noir for the awards show.


When US vice-president Mike Pence visited Philadelphia on 23 July, he was greeted by a now familiar sight: a wall of women dressed in scarlet cloaks, with oversize white bonnets obscuring their faces.

The outfit worn by Margaret Atwood’s handmaids in her 1985 dystopian novel The Handmaid’s Tale and its recent TV adaptation has been in evidence from Argentina to the US, the UK and Ireland, and has emerged as one of the most powerful current feminist symbols of protest, in a subversive inversion of its association with the oppression of women.


An estimated 500,000 people gathered for the Women’s March on Washington to advocate for gender equality on President Donald Trump’s first full day in office. Many sported pink knitted beanies with cat ears, called “pussy hats,” as a symbol of solidarity among protestors.

A group called the Pussyhat Project helped make the hat part of marchers’ uniform. Project co-organizer Jayna Zweiman told Business Insider that anyone who planned to march could download a crochet, knit, or sew pattern for the hat on the project’s site. Alternatively, people could make and send them to the organizers to give away at DC’s march.

An awful lot of what passes for women’s politics these days is just a big game of dress-up. Whereas this might be expected from empty-headed actresses and the vinegar-drinking cat-ladies who go on women’s marches, what excuse do female politicians at the State of the Union address have? That America oppresses women so much it behooves the dozens of women who hold high political office to draw attention to it? This is theatre – nay, pantomime – and these women are play-acting. The whole stunt screams:

“Hah! We have forced our way into your institutions and now we’re going to act like a bunch of teenagers and there’s not a damned thing you can do about it. Take that, daddy men!”

Which is strange, because the old misogynistic dinosaurs of yesteryear warned against allowing women into senior positions on the grounds they’d not take them seriously. From accounts I’ve read on Twitter, each woman in white sat through Trump’s address with a face like a bulldog licking piss off a thistle until he said:

No-one has benefited more from a thriving economy than women, who have filled 58% of the newly created jobs last year.

At which point they rose to their feet and delivered a round of applause in congratulation to…themselves.

I can understand why this goes down well with some women. What I don’t understand is why normal, intelligent, self-assured women would take them seriously. Even more baffling is that men vote for them as well. As others have said, modern feminism is little more than a giant sh*t-test which men are failing badly. Men are gonna need to snap out of it soon. So are ordinary women, for that matter.


Aisle see you in court

I’m sure this will result in unforeseen consequences:

Supermarket giant Asda has lost an appeal in the latest development in a long-running legal dispute with staff over equal pay.

The decision means that lower paid shop staff, who are mostly women, can compare themselves with higher paid warehouse workers, who are mostly men.

The Employment Tribunal first ruled against Asda in October 2016. It said shop workers, who mainly work at check-outs or stacking shelves, could compare themselves with staff who work at warehouses.

It’s not over yet, though:

A ruling over whether the work is of equal value is likely to be in May.

There are three key stages in an equal pay case

– Are the jobs comparable?

– If the jobs are comparable, are they of equal value?

– If they are of equal value, is there a reason why the roles should not be paid equally?

I’ve worked on a shop floor and in a warehouse, and I’ve got to say I preferred the warehouse. Although the work is more physical, colder, and you have to dodge forklifts and reversing lorries, you don’t have to mind your language nor deal with idiotic members of the public. You can also goof off more easily: one of the worst things about working a shop floor is you can’t start loafing in the quiet times. Warehouse work tends to be peaks and troughs.

I expect there are women who work in Asda’s warehouses, just as there are men who work their shop floors. As Asda says:

“Our hourly rates of pay in stores are the same for female and male colleagues and this is equally true in our depots.”

The myth of the gender pay gap has long been debunked, and all but the dimmest of feminists are beginning to realise the differences in pay are down to the choices men and women make. Across the population, men are more likely to do dangerous jobs, work nights, work outside, and do deeply unpleasant jobs which women avoid – all of which attract a wage premium. So what we’re seeing now are campaigns for those jobs women choose being recognised by law as of “equal value” to those men opt for. It is quite easy to determine whether working in a warehouse carries equal value as working on the till – see which role requires the higher salary to attract suitable applicants – but this is producing the wrong result. Enter the ambulance chasers:

Leigh Day represents more 30,000 shop floor staff from the big four supermarkets – Asda, Sainsbury’s, Tesco and Morrisons – in similar cases.

This is the law firm which leads witch hunts against British soldiers who fought in Iraq. They believe the courts – rather than the market – is the true arbiter of a job’s value, and will be hoping to follow up on the success of this case, which they also brought:

A group of female workers in the West Midlands have won a Court of Appeal decision on equal pay claims.

The case involves 174 former employees of Birmingham City Council.

The women, who worked as cooks, cleaners, caterers and care staff, claimed they were excluded from getting the bonuses handed out to employees in traditionally male-dominated jobs.

Then there’s this:

It took more than six years and a hard-fought court battle for Joan Clulow, 72, and Pamela Saunders, 67, to finally receive compensation for the years they had been underpaid as home care workers.

“The pay was diabolical for what we did,” said Saunders, a carer employed by Birmingham council for 30 years.

When the council finally graded jobs, it put theirs on a par with mainly male road cleaners and refuse collectors whose wages were boosted by bonuses, shift payments and attendance allowances. “We were gutted,” said Clulow, a home carer for 25 years.

“It hurt because we worked that hard. Christmas Day, Boxing Day, night time if they needed us. We never refused,” she added.

Saunders said: “We couldn’t believe it. Don’t get me wrong, the men do work hard, but we did work hard. And I couldn’t see a lot of them doing what we do. Would they empty a commode, wash somebody down covered in mess, go into a house full of maggots and clean it up? But I’ll tell you what, I would have gone and done a dustman’s job for the day.”

Her remarks reminds me of this post, in which I noted some women don’t seem to understand exactly what “male” jobs entail. Does this Saunders really think men who clean streets and run garbage trucks couldn’t go into a house full of maggots and clean it up, or empty a commode? I think this Asda case might stem in part from the fact supermarket warehouses are no longer situated beside the retail outlets, leaving staff with little idea of what sort of work their colleagues are doing.

What will be interesting to see is how Asda and the other supermarkets handle this. If the courts rule that shop floor and warehouse work are comparable and of equal value, is there any reason why employees couldn’t be required to rotate between them? If Mrs Saunders would gladly have done a dustman’s job for a day (but for some reason didn’t switch to this more lucrative line of employment), would Janet from the deli mind humping boxes in the warehouse at 5am when the first lorry-load of vegetables comes in? I’m sure Barry who normally stacks pallets wouldn’t mind a turn on the till when the temperature drops below freezing in the yard.

We’re going to see a lot more of this, as progressives attempt to close the wage gap by equating wholly different jobs, supported by idiot judges and politicians. It will be interesting to see how the market responds, and what the unintended consequences are.


Label Weiss

I’m currently halfway through listening to the recent Joe Rogan podcast with Bari Weiss, a journalist at the New York Times. I don’t think I need to wait until the end to conclude she’s dumber than a wet breeze block.

She says on the podcast that she doesn’t consider herself white but Jewish, despite her being paler than a male feminist whose hard-drive’s been seized by police. This isn’t surprising. If you want to join the ranks of the liberal left, it’s best you identify as something other than white. Weiss has simply looked at the options in front of her and decided it’s best to call herself Jewish rather than white. This is an American thing: I can’t imagine too many British Jews doing this.

She also says she was inspired by the first Women’s March. This was a gathering of the wealthiest, most privileged, and well-kept women outside of royalty in the history of mankind, and there were 200,000 of them. Their excuse for marching was that they were suffering under the yoke of an intensely patriarchal society, and the election of Donald Trump, who made remarks several years before they didn’t like, was the final straw. What they were really doing was protesting the results of an election that didn’t go their way and subscribing to an alternate vision of reality because their own lives are spiritually empty. Like a small boy lying in a ditch with a stick thinking he’s fending off a battalion of invading Germans, these women fantasised about a world where they were important and did something meaningful. Bari Weiss was part of this.

She then says how dismayed she is at the realisation that the Women’s March is a hotbed of anti-semitism, fronted by people who turn up in photos standing next to Louis Farrakhan. She goes on to explain how poisonously divisive antisemitism is, and how it is based on lies and distortions which nobody seems interested in correcting. Which is funny, because she’s describing exactly how I felt about the Women’s March. It seems to me Weiss is happy to play identity politics by disavowing her skin colour and joining in a 200,000 strong mob to denounce men, but when others do the same and it’s her tribe under attack, she doesn’t like it. It’s clear she doesn’t understand that when you make tribalism and political identity the basis of your existence, you’re likely to run into conflicts with other tribes. At one point (1h:07m) she actually describes newly-anointed congresswoman Ilhan Omar as an “incredible American dream story” because she’s a refugee from Somalia, is a mother, and wears a hijab so “obviously” she wants to cheer her. Yet she’s dismayed to discover not only does Omar not like Jews very much but she’s happy to say so in public. What was she expecting, exactly?

What will it take for it to dawn on people like Weiss that it is not white American men she needs to worry about but people who really don’t like Jews, many of whom have no business being in the United States, let alone holding office? What is Weiss’ position on immigration, do you think? As various dissident right voices have said, at some point American Jews are going to have to decide whether they want to join the ranks of white deplorables or continue to stoke the fires of identity politics which enable those who truly detest them.


Stance Macabre

Regular readers will know that my position on abortion is that it’s a necessary evil, something best made available under certain conditions, with restrictions, and with the acknowledgement it’s really not a good thing to happen under any circumstances. This appears to be the general consensus in the UK and other European countries; there are principled opponents, but they lack the numbers to lobby for an outright ban, let alone get one passed.

Not so the US. Rather than seek political consensus the American ruling classes opted for legal fudge, meaning 45 years after Roe v Wade the subject is still highly divisive. This has led to those on the fringes dominating the discourse. On the right you have the likes of Ben Shapiro who thinks abortion is akin to murder and rape victims should be forced to carry their unwanted babies to term. On the left the issue has become the vehicle by which lunatic feminists punch the patriarchy on the nose, and the more ghoulish they can make what ought to be a sensitive subject, the greater they imagine their victory.

Yesterday New York State passed The Reproductive Health Act, which guarantees women the right to terminate a pregnancy up to 24 weeks, or afterwards if her life is at risk or the fetus “not viable”. This bill was brought about in response to demands from feminists who are deluded enough to believe Roe v Wade is about to be overturned and abortion will be banned nationwide. In passing it, they may have inadvertently strengthened the argument that it’s a matter best left to individual states to decide. Despite feminists’ claims that America is on the cusp of outlawing abortion, their laws are more lax than most European countries. For instance, France, Belgium, and Denmark impose a limit of 12 weeks; Sweden’s limit is 18 weeks. Germany imposes a 12-week limit as well as a mandatory counselling and a 3-day waiting period. The UK and the Netherlands set the limit at 24 weeks, with the latter imposing a 5-day waiting period and the approval of two doctors after 12 weeks. None of these countries are hotbeds of religious patriarchy, yet American feminists claim they’re being stripped of their human rights unless their sisters can have unfettered access to abortion up to 24 weeks. Even then, many argue this doesn’t go far enough, hence the clause in the recent bill that allows for termination after this date.

So having passed what is probably the most permissive abortion law anywhere on the planet, its proponents decided to celebrate. Here’s what New York’s governor thought was appropriate:

And here are the scenes from the New York senate:

Whatever your views on abortion, there’s something seriously amiss with politicians rubbing celebrations in the public’s face at the passage of a bill of this nature. I suspect this isn’t really about abortion at all, and more a manifestation of deep psychological problems among members of the ruling class and those who support them. They hate their political opponents so much they’re going to kill fetuses just to spite them. These are the people who accuse Trump of dividing America.


Hidden Figures

In the comments under my latest podcast on the subject of sexual promiscuity, Jim makes an interesting point:

I would suggest that in hard numbers a man in later life will still be viewed better by women for X previous partners than a woman would be by men for the same number, assuming a similar quality of partners on both sides.

This is true, and it explains why women lie about the numbers. Recall that my podcast was prompted by this tweet:

If women didn’t think their value in the dating marketplace was devalued by the number of partners they’d had, there would be no reason for them to lie about it. Sure, men lie too, but mainly to inflate the numbers. Then when they settle down and their partner asks them, they deflate the number to avoid looking like a complete fanny-rat.

However, both men and women lie about this stuff in part to avoid hurting the feelings of someone they care about. This is why sensible women who have enjoyed themselves at college learn to shut the f*** up, or lie when asked. A point I made in my book is the truth often doesn’t matter as much as how it’s presented. Most blokes these days know they’re not marrying virgins, but they’d prefer their partner applies some discretion and not mention their sexual history, and the same goes for the man. By being tactful, it’s a sign one partner respects the other and doesn’t want to hurt them unnecessarily.

Unfortunately, modern feminism decrees a woman should openly brag about her promiscuity. Not only does this put potential suitors off for crude biological reasons, it’s also a sign she doesn’t respect her partner nor care much for his feelings. Put simply, having several sexual partners doesn’t in itself devalue a woman, but it does if the bloke gets to hear about it. As I said, sensible women bury this stuff in a vault.


Mock ’em razors

During the marketing module of my MBA which I did last semester, the subject of colossal marketing failures came up. It appears Gillette is vying to be included in marketing lectures long into the future:

I don’t think I need to explain to my readers how insulting this is on so many levels. A comment over at David Thompson’s struck home, and included a last line which made me laugh:

Society has been bringing up boys according to the feminist model since the 1970s. It’s been going on a lot longer than #metoo or Gilette’s marketing pivot. We have enough multigenerational experience that we should be able to determine how the project of feminizing boys has worked out – do the boys grow up in to happy, successful men?

Even if it wasn’t so problematic, progressives don’t even find it believable that their guys, the oversocialized pajamaboy feminists, have any kind of iron hand inside their velvet glove, so much for the feminist promise to men of being able to access both their masculine and feminine side. They imagine instead that black men, under a kind of carbon credit scheme for their toxic masculinity, can be their street muscle against white Deplorables.

The reaction on Twitter was one of apoplectic fury, with people vowing to ditch not only Gillette, but all Proctor & Gamble products. But not everyone is unhappy:

Gillette has a dedicated page, to support the ad, which speaks volumes (emphasis theirs):

It’s time we acknowledge that brands, like ours, play a role in influencing culture. And as a company that encourages men to be their best, we have a responsibility to make sure we are promoting positive, attainable, inclusive and healthy versions of what it means to be a man. With that in mind, we have spent the last few months taking a hard look at our past and coming communication and reflecting on the types of men and behaviors we want to celebrate. We’re inviting all men along this journey with us – to strive to be better, to make us better, and to help each other be better.

From today on, we pledge to actively challenge the stereotypes and expectations of what it means to be a man everywhere you see Gillette. In the ads we run, the images we publish to social media, the words we choose, and so much more.

As I may have said before, modern corporations are as much standard bearers for a hotch-potch of post-modernist moral virtues than businesses returning value to shareholders. As I have definitely said before, these people would be better off joining a church.

The fact is, this advert has been dreamed up by a marketing department in a giant, multinational corporation. We already know which demographic these companies pander to when recruiting and promoting, and the further you get from the science and engineering branches, the more pronounced the effects of these policies will be. It doesn’t take any great genius to imagine what the marketing team behind this catastrophe looked like, and what views they subscribed to. The irony is companies justify diversity programs in part by claiming they allow marketing departments to better identify with their customers. Well, Gillette’s done a great job of that, haven’t they?


Lewis and Snark

Recently one or two people in the comments have directed me towards a Jordan Peterson interview at the hands of Helen Lewis on behalf of GQ magazine. Joe Rogan, who’s podcast I listen to, believes Lewis does a good job of it, far better than the hapless Cathy Newman managed in her interview with Peterson. This weekend I decided to watch it, and although Lewis did indeed do a lot better than Newman, it’s still a woeful performance on her part. Here is the interview:

Something Peterson says around the halfway mark sums Lewis up. He says that when she speaks, he doesn’t learn anything about her, he just hears unoriginal, utterly predictable mantra she’s been taught to say. It’s painful to watch in places, what passes for a journalist reciting feminist dogma as if it’s incontrovertible truth. You get the impression you’re watching a spoiled, middle-class brat who thinks she has the right to reshape the world in the image of the bubble she’s been raised in.

Now Lewis is undoubtedly one of the best and brightest in her contemporary field. Like Cathy Newman, she’s a graduate of Oxford University (where else?) so on some measures she’s not thick, but I think her interview with Peterson shows being brightest in the field of modern journalism isn’t saying very much. In terms of observable intellect, the interview is like watching a pub footballer turn out in an El Clasico match. This is not necessarily a problem: Joe Rogan isn’t the brightest either, but he acknowledges it and allows his far brighter guests to speak, which is partly what makes him an excellent podcast host if not a good judge of intelligence in other people. But Lewis clearly believes she’s on an equal footing with Peterson. At around the 40:50 minute mark she confidently states the rationale behind Peterson’s remarks on behaviour in lobsters is “scientifically bollocks”. This from someone who studied English at university. The clearly irritated Peterson, a clinical psychologist, explains to her it is neuroscience 101.

Lewis, being a feminist, believes modern-day societies are organised in patriarchal hierarchies of power, whereas Petersen believes they are more akin to hierarchies of competence. It’s easy to see why the two differ so wildly in their views. In Peterson’s field you need to be competent to rise to the top, whereas in Lewis’ you don’t need to be competent at all. Lewis has looked at her own career path, and those of her peers, and assumed the whole world works like that.

She’s not the only one. James D. Watson, one of the biologists who won a Nobel prize for discovering DNA, uttered wrongthink in 2007 by suggesting ethnic groups differ in IQ levels. His subsequent ostracism forced him to sell his Nobel medal to eat, and for some reason he’s been in the news again recently. This has given progressive journalists an opportunity to condemn him all over again. Steve Sailer summed up one such attempt nicely in the tweet below:

The trouble with modern journalism, as with modern politics, is the brightest people don’t go into it any more. Unfortunately, those who do think they’re the smartest people on the planet, capable of taking on clinical psychologists and offering critiques of the scientific opinions of Nobel prize winners. And they wonder why nobody wants to pay for their output any more.


The Suffering of the Sisters

Yesterday while doing some research I came across an article which contained this gem:

And though women hold 52% of management, professional and related jobs in the United States, that number masks considerable gender-based occupational segregation. Women represent 85% of meeting, convention and event planners and 72% of human resource managers, but just 19% of software developers and 9% of mechanical engineers. You can guess which roles come with more power, prestige and pay.

The way that’s written you’d think there was some sort of conspiracy to keep women out of the higher-paying roles, or to pay men more regardless of what value they added. And if mechanical engineers enjoy greater power than HR managers in large organisations, I’ve clearly chosen the wrong course. I’m not even sure we score better in prestige. They then go on to say:

We spend about a fifth of our waking lives at work. Those hours should be a source of satisfaction — not stress, boredom and frustration.

Research shows that women often report higher job satisfaction than men.

Well yes, because many choose to go into HR and event planning rather than get their heads around calculus and steam tables to become well-paid mechanical engineers. But there’s nothing stopping them, as many of my female engineer friends can attest (and they all went to university in the late ’90s, so this isn’t a recent development).

The article purports to give advice to women on what company they should work for, but seems mainly to consist of suggesting they find one where they get well paid for not doing very much. I think there might be a queue outside that outfit.


Chick Magnets

Staying on the topic of diversity, I found this interesting:

At the start of 2019, four of America’s top defense companies will be led by women.

On Thursday, the chairman and CEO of Northrop Grumman, Wes Bush, announced that he was stepping down and would be succeeded by Kathy Warden, Northrop’s current president and chief operating officer who has been with the company since 2008.

As CEO, she will join three other high profile women leading the U.S. defense industry: Marillyn Hewson, the CEO of Lockheed Martin; Phebe Novakovic, the CEO of General Dynamics; and Leanne Caret, the CEO of Boeing Defense, Space, and Security.

This too:

CIA Director Gina Haspel has appointed another woman to the top level of the agency, naming Cynthia “Didi” Rapp as deputy director for analysis, essentially the top analyst in the CIA. The appointment means that the top three directorates of the agency, for operations, analysis and science and technology are now all headed by women.

What this shows is that women are increasingly being promoted to head high-profile organisations with large budgets and lots of employees. This is hardly surprising: campaigns to increase gender diversity among top management of companies have been ongoing since at least the mid-’90s. Since the early ’00s, countries have been slowly adopting mandatory quotas for women on boards, and the EU is pushing for 40%. I understand no country has yet set quotas for women in senior management positions, but with the UK passing a law requiring companies to report on the gender pay gap it’s probably only a matter of time. (Incidentally, the British government’s guidance booklet is called Gender pay gap: creating a narrative, apparently without irony.) Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Australian government also imposes gender equality reporting requirements on private companies.

One of the things researchers have found resulting from board gender quotas is that there really aren’t many women around with the background and experience to cover all the slots. This means women tend to sit on more boards than their male counterparts, spreading themselves thinly, a point which reader Ken makes in the comments beneath this post. This is also why positions such as HR director were created, making a lot of women suddenly qualified for a board seat. At the beginning this was understandable as there were fewer women in the workplace, but twenty years on the problem remains. Norway insists on 40% women serving on boards which, according to a podcast I listened to between Christina Hoff Sommers and Jordan Peterson, has led to them bringing in American women to make up the numbers. Germany doesn’t have gender quotas, but they still face the same problem:

In Germany a shortage of qualified women led to a surge of foreigners onto supervisory boards (there is as yet no quota for management boards). That could be problematic, says Bernhard Stehfest from the Federation of German Industries, because foreigners are less familiar with the firms or German regulations.

The reason there are so few women to go around despite their filling the majority of graduate places is because, as we’ve known all along, most women choose not to sacrifice marriage, children, and a more balanced life to fight their way to the top of a major organisation. Even if super-intelligent women are pouring out of the engineering and business schools in record numbers, those putting in the hours and effort to make it to executive management are still low. And as Jordan Peterson is fond of pointing out, when Norway cleared the obstacles to women having high-flying careers in STEM fields, they found even more chose not to compared with women in more male-dominated societies. In other words, as societies get more equal in terms of gender, women tend to make choices more associated with female traits, i.e. not going into senior management in traditionally male-dominated fields. My observation is that some of the most competent female engineers I’ve met came from patriarchal societies such as Russia, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, and Turkey where they’re given no free passes.

So given there is an in-built shortage of suitably qualified and experienced women choosing to go into senior management in large organisations, governments are imposing quotas, and gender diversity campaigns are increasing their demands, what is going to happen? Well, that’s obvious. Those organisations with the household name and the money are going to snap up the women who are available, which is precisely what we’re seeing with the defence contractors and the CIA. In addition, these companies will put in the money and effort to recruit the top female graduates, meaning they have a steady stream coming through into upper management even as most quit their career paths to raise a family.

The problem with gender equality initiatives is not that incompetent women may end up running large organisations (for every incompetent woman I can show you ten incompetent men), it’s that once the large, wealthy organisations have snaffled up all the competent women how do the smaller, less wealthy companies manage without reducing standards? My guess is if a company has a low enough public profile it can get away with ignoring calls for greater gender diversity, or fudging it somehow. But there will be companies caught in the middle, too high-profile to ignore gender diversity issues but not big enough to attract what few competent women stick around to take senior management positions. They’ll be faced with no choice but to promote women who are less competent than the men around them, the results of which will be as predictable as they are inevitable.

All of this reinforces my theory that we’re going to see more women employed in large organisations with lots of employees, while men head for smaller companies where gender diversity is not a priority. A possible subject for my dissertation is to look at whether women get promoted into senior management only once a firm has reached a certain size in terms of employees and market capitalisation, and once it has a certain public profile.