In September 2013,
Janet Malcolm had an article in The New Yorker about the clothing business founded by Eileen Fisher. I noticed this:
At one point, I asked a question: “Eileen said there was a ratio of eighty per cent women to twenty per cent men in the company. But I don’t see any men around here. Where is the twenty per cent?” “In Secaucus,” someone exclaimed, to hoots of laughter from the rest. There is a warehouse in Secaucus where the men apparently are kept.
In the current issue of The New Yorker, there's
an article by Nick Paumgarten about the founder of Patagonia, Yvon Chouinard. This jumped out at me:
Chouinard may be the face of Patagonia, and its presiding saturnine spirit, but the mood around the place is distinctly upbeat, optimistic, and youthful—a distillation of his can-and-must-do side, minus the ain’t-no-use. The idea is to recruit activist outdoorspeople and teach them business. “I’m terrible at hiring,” Chouinard told me. “I only trust women to hire people here. In an interview I have no idea. They can bullshit me, and I believe them.”
These statements are so off-handed and unguarded — as if legal liability doesn't even exist. And forget moral responsibility. These people seem to love themselves for their out-and-proud preference for women. And they want us to know. They seem to feel confident that we will love them too.
Posts
48 comments:
Let's face it, the handful of reverse discrimination advocates are treated as a joke, usually because they are affected by weird personalities and agendas. Maybe in two decades, when the effect of the growing disparity in higher education takes hold . . .
“I only trust women to hire people here. In an interview I have no idea. They can bullshit me, and I believe them.”
Very odd especially at such a large (although still private) company. But it's mostly a comment about him as CEO. He (personally) trusts women more to do the interviewing. He doesn't say that the company functions that way, or relies exclusively or mainly on women to do the interviewing (or anything else).
Still odd, though.
Misandry is one of America's latest fads.
Chauvinism, whether female or male, is unfavorable to its respective sex. Female chauvinists do not have the best interests of women, or men, or babies at heart. They exploit sex for political, economic, and moral leverage over their competitors. They are a subset of class diversitists who judge and discriminate people by the "color of their skin".
I remember delivering a package to a sewing factory in Brooklyn to much applause and whistling from the women working there. Yes, I was wearing shorts...
chuck said... [hush][hide comment]
I remember delivering a package to a sewing factory in Brooklyn to much applause and whistling from the women working there. Yes, I was wearing shorts...
Are you braggin', or complainin'?
Just a few hours ago I was getting ready to cross the street next to a young woman (stranger). Behind us some man (stranger) made a loud comment about how well she looked in her dress. I realized that kind of thing still goes on all the time. She just grimly looked ahead and crossed the street with the light.
Interesting, but my own experience over the past 50 years in the business world is that women actually prefer male bosses. Why? Because men separate personal emotion from business decisions which makes for better running operations and fairer promotional decisions.
Personally, I never liked working for a female because of the regurgitating of disagreements. How dare a lower level male manager question the veracity of the politically-correct female who got her job for being manipulative - and no, I cannot recall an exception to my rule. I have had many talented female accountants work for me but few with the fire to run a department, possibly because their office work was not first in the realm of life's important stuff.
@FullMoon I thought it was funny. Certainly better than being chased down and pantsed by the ladies.
"Behind us some man (stranger) made a loud comment about how well she looked in her dress."
That should be illegal! Maybe she should wear a chador?
A good part of modern feminism is devoted to the ancient, gender specific desire to control the male gaze. Not very progressive, is it?
"women actually prefer male bosses."
Definitely true of nurses. They also prefer male nurses as supervisors.
And yet almost nobody smokes in their office anymore.
Go figure.
Being excluded from an overwhelmingly female organization is not something a guy is gonna complain about. No matter what position you had, you would end up having to fix everything, because 1) that's what men are for, and 2) you would piss everyone off with your mansplaining if you tried to teach anyone how to do it themselves.
Have you seen the ironic irony of a woman womansplaining to a man what mansplaining is?
https://youtu.be/ZOXh5repOWI
It's almost as if they believe that discrimination is bad only if directed at women. But that can't be true, can it?
It is a joke. Any man who works as a drone or beta in a female dominated business deserves derision.
My single Mom MIL (GRHS) back in the day always hired gay males for secretaries... fortunately she worked in The City. Her reasoning was that they had all the attention of detail of a woman, but with male aggressiveness. They simultaneously flattered, charmed and surreptitiously bullied the other secretaries to her advantage.
I know very little about women's fashion but I once tried to buy some Eileen Fisher clothes for my wife. She wouldn't have anything to do with their style. I quite like it. I guess I could work for Eileen Fisher. Not sure what I would do, maybe a non-celebrity endorser.
You're only permitted to say you notice when women are slighted. PC is about what you can say. What you notice and can't say does not exist in the public spaces.
The message is that we aren't slighting women.
Feminism is about nagging. Men don't nag.
It's equality in a way, just in different things. One of them is that men get to protect women, and women get to be protected.
The law will use the same common sense and let what's theoretically a violation slide, because the equality in the law isn't really meant. That's there to protect women.
Fact is, people like to discriminate and people in the in-group like feeling superior to the people in the out-group. Feminism doesn't change that. If anything, the sense of grievance nurtured by the feminist ideology encourages it.
In business there are "people" who can work and make a profit for a business. There are a lot of weak people who try and leverage their weakness as a benefit to the company. But usually not, they are just tolerated as sub performers.
I have found sexism is the generation older than than me. 65-90. I have found that women in their 20-30's as a group work a LOT harder than their video playing counterparts. I'd much rather hire a women in that age group unless the male has some exceptional skills.
We have a lot of people trying to sell themselves as social justice babies. That is what they bring to the table. They are worthless for the bottom line whether they are men or women.
And as stated above. The alpha male without any wisdom is almost useless in a team setting. We try and keep everyone on board until they retire or leave. Drops in productivity by all will happen and we work around it.
What I find neglected are the opportunities to hire the handlicapped and disabled who would love to have a job in an assisted work situation. That is the big culture change that needs to occur in America. As well as the 30 hour work week, where one of the new robots works 10 hours of your 40 hour work for you instead of funneling the benefits to some out of touch billionaire.
Maybe in two decades, when the effect of the growing disparity in higher education takes hold . . .
Maybe in eight years, after President Hillary does for the sexes what Obama did for the races.
If I hear micro aggression complaints at work I just think but not say "GTFO" There is probably your institutional bias on my part.
People don't fight for justice or fairness or equality; they fight for their interests. They say they fight for justice and fairness because it sounds more persuasive. If somebody was being treated inequitably or unfairly, and they fought until they reached the point of equality or fairness, why would they stop fighting? Why not keep fighting, using the same successful tactics, to win the unfair advantage your adversaries used to have or to get revenge or just because fighting is fun or you found a way to make fighting your lucrative career?
The large tech firm I work for openly and proudly discriminates in hiring and promotion against males, white people and Asians, as a matter of policy.
Liberalism is a cancer eating out the foundations of civilization. It is evil in its purest form. That it hides behind pretty mottos is key to its destructiveness.
jdniner said...I have found sexism is the generation older than than me. 65-90. I have found that women in their 20-30's as a group work a LOT harder than their video playing counterparts. I'd much rather hire a women in that age group unless the male has some exceptional skills.
And...there you have it.
jdniner said...
'In business there are "people" who can work and make a profit for a business. There are a lot of weak people who try and leverage their weakness as a benefit to the company. But usually not, they are just tolerated as sub performers.'
jdniner, could you explain the significance of the quotes around the word people in that first sentence?
Wasn't it Congreve who said, "Hell hath no fury as a person scorned."?
Oh wait....
"These statements are so off-handed and unguarded — as if legal liability doesn't even exist."
The head of HR at my company has stated, in a forum open to all employees, that his attorneys have assured him that the company policy of openly discriminating in favor of women and URMs (Under-Represented Minorities = non-Asians) is perfectly legal. I really have to question whether a lawyer who offers such assurances is competent. We are talking tens of thousands of potential victims, with damages in the hundreds of thousands of dollars each, and some very deep pockets. What kind of lawyer says, "Sure, go for it! What's the worst thing that can happen?" in a situation like that? A federal jury with two or three retired engineers might not be the worst thing that could happen, but it will do until something worse comes along. And it could certainly happen. I look forward to the day.
I suppose that when you are a salaried company lawyer, you tell your boss what your boss clearly wants to hear. And your paychecks clear, month after month, so what's the problem?
Hey Jupiter, "large tech firm…discriminates in hiring…Asians, as a matter of policy." I'd keep my resume updated if I were you. that firms not going places.
"These statements are so off-handed and unguarded — as if legal liability doesn't even exist." Does it? I mean, in the real world? Like, with multi-million-dollar settlements for anti-male gender discrimination?
"And forget moral responsibility. These people seem to love themselves for their out-and-proud preference for women. And they want us to know. They seem to feel confident that we will love them too." And rightly so, after half a century of feminists telling them that any difference that favors women should be celebrated. Love of women-first is the not-so-new moral responsibility.
Jupiter, can you name the firm? I personally want to boycott it.
The Girl at Starbucks That Hates You:
I see you in line: you don't have your smiley face on. You're pissed that the line is so long, and you need to get to work...
The man three places ahead of you: maybe he's never been in a Starbucks before, I don't know. He has waited in line to get to the counter to begin to look at all the options of beverages. He wants an Espresso, or a Latte, can I tell him the difference? And he smells bad: I can't help that, people....
I tell him the difference of the beverages, as everyone behind him inwardly groans and outwardly express their displeasure in body language. You are looking at your watch: I get it: you're running late. And somehow I am the reason for you running late. You want me to say "Just order a fucking drink" to him, and you know I cannot say that but you are disgruntled that I don't say it anyway...
The next customer has one of THOSE orders: half of this, non-fat that, soy, no whip, that certain temperature -- for a Small drink. We're not splitting atoms, people: my people will wing it and YOU WILL NOT TELL THE DIFFERENCE...
Unless we actually do get it right, where you will then complain THAT IS NOT WHAT I ORDERED...
We will make that drink again, because that is what pleases them: do it again because I have discerning taste...
So you finally get to the counter and now you put your Smiley Face on: you are so Happy to be a customer and so Happy to see me and so wanting to be seen as Happy. And when your drink isn't ready for two minutes you mumble under your breath, look at your watch, and heave a Sigh...
You want a coffee in less than two minutes? Go to fucking Seven-Eleven...
My male Boss gets all of this, but then wants to rub my shoulders.
My female Boss taps her watch and shoots me a distasteful look.
I fucking hate you all...
I am Laslo.
I will see them in court---Or, over the hilt.
Transcribed without comment or sense of irony by the SJW newbies at the Paper of Record. They still wouldn't see it even if you highlighted it for them.
Sexbots are coming. Soon there will be even less reason to put up with this garbage.
Going to be a lot more demand for cats soon.
Thinking discrimination against men is funny (and discrimination against white peope too) is broader phenomenon than just in business. Look at your facebook feed--it's rampant and very few men (or white people) stand up to it. And you know what we learn when someone does stand up to it? That it's unapologetic--even when directly called on a direct example, women (and minorities) don't care.
This reminds me of something I heard in the run-up to the 2012 election when the supposed female pay disparity was being touted: that Mitt Romney should've said something like, "You mean to tell me that I could hire all women and save myself 23% in salary costs? Somebody write that down for me."
Believe me there is nothing funny about those failed American males rapidly accruing like flammable garbage in the basement of our nation. Jobless, uneducated, hopeless, they exist in the grey and black economy. They are busy procreating more failed American males, making meth, dealing drugs, playing video games, indulging in petty crime, consuming porn, shooting each other, and finally graduating to jail and prison. Can that trend go on forever?
Do they think it's funny? Yes, they do.
And if the men go to court, they will likely not lose. Because a lot of lawyers and judges also think it's funny.
This is why feminism is viewed so negatively. Because it tends towards being viciously anti-male. It's become a female superiority movement.
I have found sexism is the generation older than than me. 65-90. I have found that women in their 20-30's as a group work a LOT harder than their video playing counterparts. I'd much rather hire a women in that age group unless the male has some exceptional skills.
Nice to see bigotry so openly expressed.
This reminds me of something I heard in the run-up to the 2012 election when the supposed female pay disparity was being touted: that Mitt Romney should've said something like, "You mean to tell me that I could hire all women and save myself 23% in salary costs? Somebody write that down for me."
That was my argument for years. If you could save a lot of money hiring women --- why would you EVER hire men?
But men who complain about this are "whiners" --- even called as such by our host here in the past. Or labeled as MRA, as if that is a bad thing. Feminists don't give a shit about men's issues --- somebody needs to take up that mantle. The views on MRA are pretty similar to how feminists were viewed in the past.
And, don't worry --- I bet when the pendulum swings back, nothing bad will happen...
If you read the article on Eileen Fisher, to be informed rather than for the purpose of trolling outrage, it is very well written and is an interesting take on a particular corporate culture. They had a male CEO for a while, didn't work out. They don't seem particularly anti-man. It is a particular type of woman's fashion, not showy or sexy. It is not exactly the kind of place you would expect to find many men, even gay men.
tim Maguire: "Thinking discrimination against men is funny (and discrimination against white peope too) is broader phenomenon than just in business. Look at your facebook feed--it's rampant and very few men (or white people) stand up to it. And you know what we learn when someone does stand up to it? That it's unapologetic--even when directly called on a direct example, women (and minorities) don't care."
Fen's Law.
Woman good, man bad.
Person of color (gawd what a horror show of a phrase*) good, white bad.
Young good, old bad.
It's so easy I don't even need a note card to keep it straight.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
* May, or may not, include Hispanics, Asians or others at the whim of the speaker.
He has waited in line to get to the counter to begin to look at all the options of beverages.
That kind of things drives me nuts. You've had all this time in line -- why aren't you using it productively to decide your order before you get to the counter?
I was a Pizza Brutta the other day to get a loaf of bread (if you've not had their bread, remedy that shortcoming -- the only problem with it is that they don't have it every day, but honestly it's the best bread in Madison) and the people in front of me, after waiting for the people in front of them to order slowly, didn't know what they wanted! Do you have spinach? No, but we have broccoli, or arugula. Well, I don't know. This indecision went on and on.
It's similar to the behavior I see in grocery stores all the time. Waiting for the cashier to total everything up before finally deciding to start looking for a way to pay. Get your money out beforehand you numbnuts!
As I said, it drives me nuts.
Oh -- and except for coffee shops, invariably the slowpokes are women. In the grocery store they start digging through their capacious handbags (because it's so important to carry a flashlight, a sleeve of kleenex, a jar of vitamins, aspirin, nail clippers, a hair brush, letters from your parents, last month's bills and on and on everywhere you go) and I just roll my eyes.
I could never be a cashier.
(exhale)
Danno said...
"Jupiter, can you name the firm? I personally want to boycott it."
Chances are, you were using one of our products when you entered that comment.
R. Duke said...
'Hey Jupiter, "large tech firm…discriminates in hiring…Asians, as a matter of policy." I'd keep my resume updated if I were you. that firms not going places.'
In the long run, I think you're right. The current management has one eye on the stock price and the other eye on the exit. But there's a power of ruin in a nation, and this corporation has more revenue than a lot of nations.
Perhaps the more troubling aspect of the matter is that the fucking Left has largely succeeded in making me see myself as a member of an oppressed minority. They wanted to smash our society, and the process is well along. We are now just a collection of squabbling tribes, and squabbling will turn to something worse. When it does, feminism will be as irrelevant as fashion.
If you read the article on Eileen Fisher, to be informed rather than for the purpose of trolling outrage, it is very well written and is an interesting take on a particular corporate culture. They had a male CEO for a while, didn't work out. They don't seem particularly anti-man. It is a particular type of woman's fashion, not showy or sexy. It is not exactly the kind of place you would expect to find many men, even gay men.
Take the article, verbatim, and apply it to women instead of men and it'd be "unbelievably sexist". We all know that is true.
"Well, men don't want to do that anyway". Funny, women not wanting to be in STEM fields isn't a good explanation...
damikesc said...
Take the article, verbatim, and apply it to women instead of men and it'd be "unbelievably sexist".
As I said, the article does not suggest that the company is in the slightest bit anti-man. A significant slab of the article is basically gossip about Fisher's not entirely successful love life, with men. It's like complaining about the relative absence of women in a sports franchise.
Sure, that shows who's really got power today (or rather who is likely to enlist a social lynch mob or employ a lawsuit)
But on the other hand, perhaps women are drawn to apparel as men are drawn to build videogames and rockets.
Post a Comment