NPR CEO Finally Dumped

I obviously spoke too soon in my previous post. You haven't changed your thinking at all.

You are still making unsubstantiated statements, regarding female leadership ability, without any basis in fact. The fact that you hedge your comments with terms like "seems to be" or "appears to be" does not change the fact that your comments are not supported by any sort of objective data.


How do you know that women appear to perform poorly "once they finally do get leadership roles"? Can you supply the data, or any objective data, that constitutes the basis for your conclusion?
Are you now extending this to all leadership roles, beyond what we have been discussing in the corporate world?


We see so many spectacular flame outs of women? Really? Seems to me we see more spectacularly successful women in those corporate plum positions. I named several in my previous post--Meg Whitman, Ellen Kullman, Angela Braly, and Pat Woertz--women who run major corporations and who earn $13-$14 million+ a year.
And that group doesn't even include people like Martha Stewart, or even Oprah Winfrey, who have build their own business empires and are magnates in their own right.

So, tell us, Hawkeye, why you think women might be failing in leadership roles. Something on the XX chromosomes? Something hormonal? Lack of a penis?

But, first you really should supply some data to support the assumption that women fail in leadership roles more often than men do. Before you try to get "to the bottom" of something, you should first establish that the problem even exists.

I have not seen any data either way, and I know from experience in other matters that where the feminists dont want questions asked they have been sometimes been very successful in shutting down all conversation and all investigation by science into the matter. I will not be bullied, I will not be silenced by the imposed lack of data and lack of documentation.

Your demand is rejected.

Meaning you have nothing to support your contention that women fail in leadership positions more often than men. It is simply a view you hold, based on your own bias and negative appraisals of women. It is more of your BS. More hot air.



Who said that anyone here doesn't want certain questions asked? You're the one who doesn't want certain questions asked--like where's the data to support your assumptions?

This has nothing to do with feminists. Why are you even introducing the subject of feminists into this topic?

You made statements, about women, you are the one who should be able to back them up with evidence. The first person in this thread who asked you to back up your statements regarding women in CEO/leadership positions was ragman. You didn't respond to him either.

No one is bullying you, or trying to silence you. Stop playing the victim.

But, if you continue to make sweeping, generalized statements, such as
You should be prepared to back that statement up--to support it with some concrete data or some objective measure, some evidence. Otherwise, your statement is meaningless, and it cannot become part of any reasonable or serious discussion because there is no way of evaluating the validity, or truth, of your premise. Did you just pull it out of thin air? Did you just make it up?

All that means is that you will continue to shoot your mouth off and continue to make unfounded statements that have no basis in fact, and that might have no connection to reality. Glad you are so up front about that, Hawkeye. You are broadcasting a BS alert.

You're the one who shuts down conversation. You're the one who doesn't want to answer questions.

In this case, you're not expressing anything except your own personal bias regarding women. And you have nothing to back it up. No one is silencing you, but why would anyone want to listen to you?

that women SEEM to fail more often than men is an observation that I have made, that I can not prove. I have seen no proof that I am wrong either, as this seems to be an area where the facts have been squashed by the feminists.

Are we clear yet?.....you seem to be having a particularly difficult time understanding today....

You really have a paranoid obsession with feminists. And, like any obsession, it impairs the ability to adequately perceive and evaluate reality.

Women in high positions of leadership, particularly in the corporate world, are in public, visible roles. They held other positions on their way up the ladder. Those that get to the top have succeeded, and have beat out the competition. Once in a leadership/CEO role, their performance can be evaluated by various criteria. Where is any of this being hidden? How could any of these facts be squashed, by your scapegoat "feminists", or by anyone else? You just don't have the facts, and you're trying to make excuses for why you don't have them. If you took the time, and did the research, you probably could find data to either support or refute your position. Until then, I am forced to conclude you just don't know what the hell you are talking about.

We sure are. This is just another thread you are using to make unfounded, biased statements about women, and to continue your obsessive paranoid rant about feminists.