One Gender's Crash: "All the perpetrators of the greatest economic mess in decades are, well, men."

[DeepModem Mom]

WP op-ed: One Gender's Crash
By Debora Spar
Sunday, January 4, 2009; Page B07

Let me begin with the caveats: I like men. My husband is one, as are my two sons. I have spent most of my career surrounded by men, and I have no major complaints. But as the financial debacle unfolds, I can't help noticing that all the perpetrators of the greatest economic mess in eight decades are, well, men. Specifically, they are rich, white, middle-aged guys, same as the ones who brought us Watergate in the 1970s, the Teapot Dome scandal in the 1920s and, presumably, the fall of Rome.

One might argue, of course, that the preponderance of men behaving badly on Wall Street is just a mathematical corollary of the preponderance of men doing anything on Wall Street. But the truth is more complicated. Although the Y-chromosome is undeniably overrepresented along all tiers of finance, it is particularly overrepresented at the highest levels of power and in those sectors most deeply implicated in the current crisis. A Catalyst Research study last year found that women make up almost 60 percent of the workforce at Fortune 500 finance and insurance companies but account for only 17.9 percent of corporate officer positions and none of the chief executive positions. In the world of hedge funds, women are notable largely for their absence.

Clearly, some greater force is at work here, something more than the traditional clubbiness of Wall Street or the obstacles that still confront women juggling work and family. It may be that women perceive and act on risk in subtly different ways; that they don't, as a general rule, embrace the kind of massively aggressive behavior that brought us a Dow of 14,000 and then, seemingly overnight, a crash of epic proportions. Whether it be from a protectiveness born of biology or a reticence imposed by social norms, women may be less inclined than men to place the kind of bets that can get them in real trouble.

Conversely, women may also be more inclined to blow the whistle on others' risky business. Consider the case of Brooksley Born, former head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, who in 1997 called for greater disclosure and new rules to govern the exploding world of financial derivatives. She was chastised by some of the most powerful men on Wall Street, and her recommendations were ignored. But she was right. So was Sherron Watkins, the first Enron executive to warn its CEO that the company was heading for deep financial trouble. So was Coleen Rowley, the FBI agent who prodded her superiors -- unsuccessfully -- to investigate the men who later unleashed the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

We don't yet know why women respond differently to danger signals -- and earlier, it appears -- than men. We don't know why women either shy away, or are effectively banned, from businesses that thrive on risk....

Whatever the reason, the experience of the past year suggests that we desperately need to bring more women into leadership positions on Wall Street, in politics, in regulatory bodies and in American life generally....

(Debora Spar, a former professor at Harvard Business School, is president of Barnard College, a liberal arts college for women. She is the author, most recently, of "The Baby Business.")

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/02/AR2009010202099.html?nav=most_emailed

[Captain Hilts]

1. She's wrong about them all being white. I think Merril Lynch's CEO was/is black...

as were Fannie and Freddie execs.

But, yes, ALL men.

Men have diff opportunties in business/politics than women have.

[Joanne98]

2. Ain't that the truth. K&R

[hughee99]

3. While almost 60% of the workforce is female...

most CEO's are people who have been at the company (or at least in the industry) for 20+ years? What is the percentage of females with that level of experience? I don't disagree that more women should be in leadership positions, but this statistic can be misleading.

[Captain Hilts]

5. CEOs flit around a lot more than you think. You shop for new jobs serving on boards..

of other companies, at country clubs, etc.

[hughee99]

26. Okay...

I'm not really sure what that has to do with this though. I'm just saying that CEO's tend to be people who have been in the industry for a fair amount of time 15-20+ years. While this industry seems to be hiring a majority of females NOW, it will take some time until there is as large a percentage of females with that level of experience. Yes, there are certainly areas of discrimination, but that statistic might lead one to believe that 60% of the people qualified to be a top executive are female.

[Captain Hilts]

34. Yes and no. Companies often bring outsiders from other industries in...

There's a kind of 'financial' class.

[hughee99]

73. Companies often do, but I wasn't aware that

Financial companies were in the habit of bringing in executives without a strong finance background from other industries. Usually, it seems to be the other way around, where people with a financial background are taken from the industry to other industries.

[Creideiki]

6. Most teachers are women

Most administrators are men. There are women who have a lifetime of experience in their industry, and still get passed up for men. That's pretty damned sexist, IMHO.

[hughee99]

22. Excellent example, but completely unrelated to CEO's.

To say that 60% of the workforce is female suggests that 60% of the people who could be top executives are female. Since people usually work their way up to top positions (one way or the other), it's misleading. If men and woman both averaged the same number of years on the job, then it would be a valid argument, but I suspect that it is not the case. With this current trend (a larger percentage of younger workers being female), this WILL be the case before too long, but I don't believe it is at this time.

Again, I'm not suggesting that women not being discriminated against, but it's also not necessarily the case that 60% of the QUALIFIED candidates for top positions are women either.

[Realityhack]

4. 9-11, Enron, and the current crash wouldn't have happened if we just had more gender parity?!?

Hogwash. Obviously we need equal opportunity and we are far from it. Yes we need to protect whistler blowers (of either sex).
But this is a reason for the crash? I think that is speculative bunk without any serious support.

[ensho]

11. yes, gender parity would and will stop a lot of negative things

gender parity - equal rights are important!

[anigbrowl]

69. Really? Ask Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorina about that.

I'm not convinced by the thesis of the OP.

[EstimatedProphet]

85. Equal rights are important, but that's not why

You have no reason to believe that more women involved in the process would mean that the system would magically function beneficially for everyone.

[OregonBlue]

12. But you can't deny that there is a "good old BOYS club".

Men seem to be much more likely to engage in risky behavior and I believe our culture has encouraged that. The Wall Street culture has certainly encouraged and rewarded that.

[Realityhack]

23. I do not deny the existance of such a club.

However I do question wither anyone would seek those jobs who did not engage in a considerable amount of risk taking behavior.
The original article implied that these things would not have happened if we just had more gender parity. That is utter bullshit.

[OregonBlue]

32. Maybe but I do believe that boys are inherently more inclined toward risky behavior

and that our culture encourages that behavior. In fact rewards it. Men who take risks and succeed are rewarded beyond their accomplishments and those that take risks and fail are not punished (at least in the White Collar world). So it is not surprising to me that the majority of those involved in these risky schemes are men. Maybe it's not genetic, maybe only cultural but it is definitely part of our culture.

[Realityhack]

37. So...

we can conclude that because risk taking is expected in those positions, and women don't do as much risk taking... therefore we should never expect women to excel or be equally represented in those positions?

Come on. This is strictly Post hoc ergo propter hoc. The op-ed isn't exactly serious sociological research and any serious research must acknowledge the social factors that you point out.

Compare risk taking females to risk taking males. Are there differences? sure I would expect there would be some. There are definitely different social pressures. but let's not pretend that the housing market would not be inflated if we just had more female CEO's at the bank. Let's not pretend that if we just had more females in the leadership in national intelligence that 9-11 would have been prevented.

Girls are good and boys are bad... what a load of shit.

[Runcible Spoon]

52. well, we can either shove women with the same psycho-social profiles as men in power have...

into positions of power or we can change the whole culture of business by rewarding social benefit, mature growth vs. rampant speculation, and responsibility. I don't like to argue gender essentialism; it is true that nature probably rewarded risk-taking in human males more than women, but our entire evolution consists of social interactionalism (among each other and with the environment), not merely base instinct. I would argue that this is precisely what makes us human. As such, we need to reject this whole idea that gender somehow predetermines behavior in men and women. Someone downthread mentioned brain scan studies showing certain areas of the brain associated with impulse and risk-taking more active in men than women, but the same research also suggests that neural pathways are constantly forged and reinforced by repetitive cognitive activity. In other words, brains PHYSICALLY change according to our life experiences and what we choose to obsess over or avoid.

[Realityhack]

62. I am happy to discuss changing the culture of business....

and the potential unintended consequences etc. I agree with a number of things you have said there.

However, I think that the conversation is one that is entirely and completely divorced from the op-ed in the OP because that is not at all what was discussed in the op-ed. The op-ed was logically fallacious sexist crap of the same type the other side typically throws around. It was the intellectual equivalent of pointing out how many scientists in the past have been men and then claiming their being male had something to do with it. Complete bullshit.

So I am not trying to defend the status quo or risk taking behavior. Just pointing out that the op-ed is stupid.

[Runcible Spoon]

66. well as a woman who spends quite a bit of time thinking about these issues..

I think I could have written it better! :evilgrin:

[Realityhack]

68. I think that is an understatement. n/t

[Runcible Spoon]

70. I don't know if that's an insult to the author or a compliment for me, but I'll TAKE IT!

:evilgrin: :smoke:

[OregonBlue]

61. That is not what I was saying and I don't think it was what the article was saying.

I'm simply saying that I believe our culture rewards risky behavior for men and therefore, there are more men who are willing to take unnecessary risk. When they win they are over-rewarded, when they lose they are not punished. I'm not trying to say men are bad or women are good. Just differences in how they react to situations and what our culture promotes.

I am a parent of boys. I see what our society projects on them. I believe that they have a much harder time being careful and thoughtful because they are branded by our society as weak.

Sorry if you thought it was a judgment. I'm not trying to pick a fight here.

[Realityhack]

65. Ok I think I see what you are getting at...

however, I disagree that that is what the op-ed was aimed at. I think the statements in the piece made it clear that the author was playing a girls are good boys are bad game and excusing it with a pathetic logical fallacy regarding the current financial collapse.

[OregonBlue]

76. Perhaps but I read the whole thing and I thought the article was more asking questions about

why it is all (or mostly) men and trying to provoke some thought on the subject. It would be very interesting for someone to do a real study on why it was men and how much it is related to societal conditioning. I think our society is very hard on men. Those that don't want to be tough, those that are more introspective are labeled as nerds or sissies. We need to take a serious look at how we condition boys in our culture to be aggressive and then act shocked when they commit acts of aggression. Nothing new, just an interesting article from my point of view.

[Captain Hilts]

77. "Ambition," and "arrogance" are tolerated in men, but not in women. We have diff standards of...

acceptable behavior for both and we're socialized along those lines.

[Chulanowa]

79. I don't deny the existence of such

But I do doubt that an estrogen injection would have cured the monster.

The premise of the article is that women are inherently better. My experience is that women are just as frequently amoral, money-grubbing misanthropes as men. Anecdotal I suppose, but it provides a good basis for my own premise that, regardless of whether the four-letter word for their genetals starts with a D or a C, they've all got an asshole.

[EstimatedProphet]

86. Yes, I can, because you're leaving out one word

namely, "rich". It's a good old RICH boys club. How much of our problems stem from the fact that the rich have the power in our society to steer the system to their own advantage?

[SpiralHawk]

7. "We are not ALL men. Smirk." - Commander AWOL Bush (R)

"In fact, most of us are chickenhawk republicon homelanders, so there. If you doubt me, you can check with VP Dickie 'Five Military Deferments' Cheney, Rush 'Anal Pimple' Limbaugh, and the other republicon gender-non-specific heroes like O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck. Smirk."

- Commander AWOL (R)

[populistdriven]

8. My African American Wifey insisted on putting her 401k into stocks in 2004

Her hubby - (a white male) insisted on all of it in money market because "bush will destroy the US economy".

Maybe its because of her degree in finance? :shrug:

[berni_mccoy]

9. CEO Of Ebay is a woman and was a huge supporter of McCain. Hillary was on the board of WalMart.

Both of these people could be labeled in some way with blame of the current economic failure.

Women aren't capable of Greed? Of Failure? Oh, right, this is a blame men thread.

Utter rubbish.

[John Q. Citizen]

10. my guess is they are mostly married men with wives who let them get away with that bullshit!

Or am I wrong?

also, every mortgage I've ever gotten has been through a woman account person.

There were people all up and down the chain of command, from top to bottom, who knowingly committed fraud or at least turned a blind eye. That's the only way it could go so wide, deep, and far.

[Hydra]

13. The idea is sound but the reasoning is flawed

All of this financial voodoo is created for one reason- to rip people off. This is the good ol' boys club taken to the ultimate extreme.

This isn't about risks or foreseeing problems- it's about how they made TRILLIONS off of us and made us pay them to do it.

Women are banned for the most part simply because they aren't the cronies on the payroll, with some exceptions like Condi Rice.

[Lance_Boyle]

14. Two words and a loogey:

Carly Fiorina. Ptooey!

[HughBeaumont]

55. "No Job is America's God Given Right anymore".

Just as ruthless, uncaring and short-sighted as any Jack Welch or Chainsaw Al. How this woman got to be CEO of anything is beyond me. "Do a massive layoff, outsource and insource the remaining positions and spend more money to stay in the same place we were 5 years ago" is hardly what I'd call a sound business strategy. That's just taking the chicken-shit bean-counter way out.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

15. Who Cares? Pretty Irrelevant Op-Ed.

Conclusions are quite faulty as well.

[Captain Hilts]

17. I care and it's thought-provoking. nt

[Runcible Spoon]

48. "thought-provoking" and OMC is an oxymoron

:evilgrin:

[ensho]

16. some of you are changing the subject

the subject is that it was men that did the deed.

you all are changing it to women can be dishonest and greedy too.

tsk.

[Realityhack]

25. I disagree.

The op-ed clearly tried to make a case that women where somehow less likely to do these things.
"Conversely, women may also be more inclined to blow the whistle on others' risky business."
"We don't yet know why women respond differently to danger signals -- and earlier, it appears -- than men. "
etc.

[LoZoccolo]

27. Bullshit. n/t

[lukasahero]

47. Par for the course

Gender parity cannot be discussed on DU.

[noiretextatique]

63. just like the subject of racism, i.e., everyone can be racist

but given the history and the reality in america, racism hasn't been the problem for white people that it has been for people of color. it's the same with this reality. mostly middle-aged, mostly white men behaving badly is the norm...8 years of bush, inc for example. it's a flaw in our culture that continues to breed and reward these men.

[slampoet]

72. Yes, why let facts get in the way of an OP-ED? Or can't you tell the difference after 8 years?

[EstimatedProphet]

88. That is asinine

So, you get to state that men are solely responsible because men are inherently bad, and anyone that says that women can be bad is to be automatically discredited? You want to win the discussion by default. We're showing the logicall fallacy behind the argument, so you're trying to disallow the ability to show that there is a logical fallacy.

[leftstreet]

18. Capitalism knows no gender

The system runs the same no matter what.

[ensho]

20. I doubt that

nt

[leftstreet]

21. Why?

n/t

[ensho]

24. because women are not men

the texture of capitalism would be different and wouldn't have a capital C.

[RadiationTherapy]

84. Have you dated many women?

I have. Many, many, many of them were CAPITALIST as all hell.

There is no way to resolve this issue without women "taking over" so they can finally fuck it all up in their specific female ways and we no longer have to argue who is more inept at power dynamics and greed and selfishness and killing.

Ok, women? Ready, set, GO!!

[Runcible Spoon]

36. neoliberal capitalism does know gender...

globally, women suffer the brunt of social and economic ills brought on by globalization, outsourcing, "mobile" production(basically they can move entire factories overnight...you turn up the next day and your job is literally gone), etc. The beneficiaries are almost entirely men. So yes, I would say that capitalism knows gender.

[leftstreet]

40. Ah, you make a good point. Just a different kettle of fish

Not even to mention race.

I'd say religion is more likely the culprit behind societal arrangements.

But, in a strictly for-profit system the gender and race of the outsourcers and the victims is irrelevant.

[Runcible Spoon]

45. oh yes that is entirely true...

capitalism doesn't give a fuck who it's disenfranchising! As for religion, well, in my training we were taught to treat all social institutions as pretty much bound by the same factors. As in, the primary cultural attitudes towards gender, ethnicity, class, etc. will manifest pretty much the same throughout social institutions like religion, economic systems, education, employment, etc. The main difference is just not viewing religion and the actual institutions as the innate seats of social determinism, and treating those facets of identity at the individual, familial, local, national, global etc level as the drivers for how the social institutions take shape and function, or in our case, cease to function. In such a view, only fundamental change in the way we perceive ourselves, others, how others perceive us, and how we enact or ignore those identities when negotiating power and agency are what matters. Social institutions do maintain some recursivity, and as such some people have absolutely no power under them or at least decreased agency, but at the root of that is the aspects of identity and position we collectively and individually negotiate, empower, ignore, or succumb to. My favorite theorists are Bourdieu, Gramsci, Foucault, Giddens...practice theory!

[LoZoccolo]

19. What an asinine, bigoted theory.

Because men happen to dominate this field, it is their gender which caused it? How do we know that with women dominating it wouldn't be worse? The truth: we don't.

I conclude from this one article that women are illogical and thus unfit to solve the world's problems.

NOTE: The last sentence was sarcastic.

[ensho]

30. well, let's have the women run it for awhile and see who does it better?

OK?

[LoZoccolo]

33. That's a different argument than what she was making.

And no.

[Runcible Spoon]

38. it's not biological essentialism, it's the masculine aggression (among other things) that

might have some biological basis, yes, but it is not biological essentialism, it is largely a product of cultural pressures that reward men for being risk-takers, for being selfish and coldly ambitious. Women can exhibit these same attributes but face more problems because these traits are not considered "feminine". It's a really tricky fence to walk. Aside from the gender trap, there are psychological profiles that fare better in high power position, one of those being narcissists. Ever worked for one? Ughh. And even beyond that, there are ethnic/cultural profile that aid success in business: a preference for individual effort and reward over cooperative benefit, a preference for whites since they are the traditional keepers of money and power, etc etc etc.

I assume your conclusion is sarcasm, but honestly, white conservative men have had their run and any other group couldn't POSSIBLY do worse. I don't think sticking women into power will change anything merely because they are women; I'm sure the women who would step into power NOW would exhibit all of the characteristics I listed above and you're right, the results would be the same. However, if we appointed women AND men that challenged the seemingly "innate" characteristics of "successful" businesspeople, and rejected the creed of profit above all, we would see real change.

Updated bc my browser likes to randomly cut and paste crap around!

[Poll_Blind]

28. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

PB

[Realityhack]

29. QFT n/t

[NashVegas]

31. I Don't See This As a Gender Issue At All

Women who won't play the game properly aren't let near the top.

I'm developing my own theory and will post on it when it's more shaped up.

[TexasObserver]

35. She really embarrassed herself with that ridiculous manifesto.

She and Larry Summers need to get together and form a partnership based upon idiocy.

This reminds me of the absurd meme that holds "if women ran the world, we wouldn't have wars." Of course, Maggie Thatcher and Golda Meir proved that notion silly.

Gender based analysis of business, politics, and life is stupid, and if one is inclined to do that, then they have to be ready to hear all those silly stereotypes that run the other direction.

In her defense, this woman has probably never heard of Sarah Palin or Carly Fiorina.

[rhett o rick]

39. First, I very much doubt that Ms. Mom is embarrassed. And third

I am always surprised when supposedly "open-minded" individuals show so much animosity toward opinions/ideas that are different from their own. Even to call ideas "idiocy".

[TexasObserver]

41. She's probably too stupid to be embarrassed.

Like her counterpart, Larry Summers.

Her statements, like those of Summers, demonstrate that person can do well in academics and still be a raging lunatic. See also, the Unabomber.

[rhett o rick]

51. Sounds like a personal grudge to me. Just sayin. nm

[TexasObserver]

54. You must mean the one you have with me.

Just sayin.

I judge her by the idiocy of her comments, just as I judge you by your comments.


You disagree with me. BFD.

[rhett o rick]

58. I do wish you well. (no sarcasm intended) nm

[natrat]

42. corporate sleaze atmosphere would trump gender, ie women would become corrupted also

[Hell Hath No Fury]

43. Hey Mom, you certainly....

hit a nerve with that posting! :D

Sadly, this is something we are light years away from fully exploring -- it is still a "3rd rail" for many.

I saw a very interesting British documentary on brain gender that illustrated precicely what the author is stating about risk and risk aversion -- new brain studies are showing a higher risk tendency for men. I think this field of science will be fascinating to watch in years to come.

[DeepModem Mom]

49. I thought I might! As many here know, I don't always agree with articles I post.

If I find them interesting, I post. I do agree with a lot of what's in the piece, and am still giving it some thought. I think I'm different from most DUers in that -- sometimes I admit I don't know exactly what I think about things, and have to mull a while. And, sometimes, I even change my mind!

[knitter4democracy]

44. Not all are middle aged. My STBX-BIL isn't.

He thinks he's personally responsible for about 10% of the mortgage-backed securities crash. He's in his 30s and out of it now.

[rhett o rick]

46. Let me begin by saying I love women, my wife is a woman, Heidi Klum is a women.

Having said that I want to make it clear that I will not challenge the logic of the OP. Having been married for over 40 years (to a women) I have learned never to challenge a woman's logic. In fact, I agree with some of what you say here, but:

When you say: "we desperately need to bring more women into leadership positions on Wall Street, in politics, in regulatory bodies and in American life generally....", who are you talking to? Are you trying to talk men into stepping back to make way for women? Or are you addressing women to be more assertive? I agree that we (society) need more women in leadership roles, but how do "we" do that?

Secondly, Behind every man in leadership is a women (sometimes more than one) that can lead him around by his smaller brain. Don't you think Condi could have gotten Georgie out of Iraq if she wanted to?

[leftofthedial]

50. logical fallacy

it's like saying, the Yankees didn't make the playoffs. All the Yankees are men. They'd have a better team if we replaced them all with women next season.

[Runcible Spoon]

56. logical fallacy, maybe, but yours is a poor analogy.

If all of the players were women, perhaps they would do better than the male Yankees, provided the teams they were playing were women. However, we are not talking about physical ability here; I don't think many people argue women have the same strength as a group.

I don't think the article is particularly well-presented, but the discussion is certainly worth having.

[leftofthedial]

57. is there a difference between male and female capitalists?

The issue is not sex. The issue is policy.

[Runcible Spoon]

64. I pretty much argued the issue wasn't gender essentialism

but we can't ignore the fact that women and men are socialized (GENERALLY) in certain ways. As such, women need to exhibit the traditional aspects of successful businessMEN while at the same time juggle retaining femininity and remain non-threatening. This is not exactly news. As for how this affects policy, I think it's pretty clear that policy is crafted for and rewards those who put personal ambition and profit above anything else. In this culture, that policy and attitude is (largely)associated with and the direct product of aggressive, selfish, white, conservative males.

[Realityhack]

59. I think that cuts to the issue here...

"I don't think the article is particularly well-presented, but the discussion is certainly worth having."

There is a discussion worth having but the article is so poorly articulated and filled with nonsense like implying that if we just had more women in government 9-11 wouldn't have happened that it is difficult for any serious discussion to flow from it.

[EstimatedProphet]

89. Here's a better analogy then:

Boris Spassky lost to Bobby Fischer in the World Chess Championship in 1972. That's about as intellectual a challenge of abilities as can be had on Earth. Would he have won had he been a woman?

I agree with you that the discussion is worth having, and your comments so far on the thread have been worth reading. But I disagree with the argument, because I believe that the real causative factor is wealth, not gender. As a man, I may have more advantages in our culture. I may get rewarded more for risk-taking. However, I am not wealthy by any means. And wealth, I think it is fair to say, gets far more rewards. Do I have it better than all women because I am a man? Do I have more responsibility for our economic meltdown than woman in general? I doubt that sincerely. I don't have any investments or any influence on the markets at all. I barely have a 401K. Carly Fiorina has been brought up a number of times here, and her example is a good one - she has far more influence than probably just about anyone here, or anyone known by anyone here.

The biggest problem IMO with the discussion as it always seems to progress is that the factor of wealth - which truly runs our society, let's be honest - is always left out. Leaving wealth out of the equality situation to me divorces 99% of the causality of all of our problems from any examination. Everything else pales in comparison.

[musette_sf]

53. K&R

[Occam Bandage]

60. What's more, the Chicago Bears were very disappointing this year. Who was on the team? Men.

[Fleshdancer]

67. I think women are just as capable of screwing up as much as men

I also believe the current economic crisis took an entire village of idiots of all races and BOTH genders. :shrug:

Seriously though, pretending that women don't possess a sense of greed, the ability to corrupt and be corrupted, and a thirst for power in both position and financial gain dehumanizes us in an odd way. All humans are capable of taking corruption to this level. By assuming we are somehow better than this would mean that we are somehow limited or unable to possesses the full range of thoughts and emotions. This just isn't the case.

I don't care how many women are brought into the financial industry...when the government blindly deregulates and there is little to no oversight in an industry that wants to make money for the sake of making money, the same shit storm will happen regardless. The system is broken.

[AngryAmish]

71. I'm sure Larry Summers agrees with her

[lumberjack_jeff]

74. Ever notice how the moms of serial killers are all women?

Coincidence, or simply bullshit sexism? You be the judge.

[originalpckelly]

75. Excuse me? I can only imagine how outraged women would be if this article had a different title.

[Prophet 451]

78. I was thinking that

It's rare I find myself agreeing with Bill Maher but he made this point in one of his stand-up shows: If it is sexist to assume that all women are whores (or whatever), it is equally sexist to assume all women are paragons of virtue. Somewhere along the line, it became perfectly acceptable to be sexist as long as you were insulting men.

[gaspee]

80. I walked out

Of my very lucrative hedge fund job in 1998 - couldn't stand the corruption that everyone wink wink nudge nudged about - didn't like the massive amounts of risk for not enough reward, either... but it was mostly the corruption.

[anonymous171]

81. Men like high risk high gain professions. nt

[Deja Q]

82. Sexist pig.

I'm not even using the :popcorn: smilie. I'm damn serious.

If I wasn't, I'd call her a "sexist pigette".

They all wore neckties too. What can be said of that?

They all drove posh cars too. Not a syllable on that, eh?

Nope. Just penis envy.

What a waste of an article, never mind my response.

[eridani]

83. She's forgetting about Carly Fiorina

There's always an exception.

[depakid]

87. Then of course, there's Wendy Lee Gramm

Who's every bit as corrupt and culpable as any man on Wall Street.