|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"according to the study by Catalyst, a nonprofit research firm seeking to advance women in business."
... lets look at that again shall we ...
"seeking to advance women"
'nuf info there for me to decide how valid this particular article is.
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yessiree, if Catalyst only wants to advance women in business, how can it prove its findings if it did not make the same exact same attempts to advance men?
Not exactly a "double-blind control group" here...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, right after I read that ... I knew there was a predetermined outcome long before the first information came in to be looked at. It's like a pro-white people group doing an "unbiased" study saying [pick any non white group] are not as productive as companies that hire more whites. Advocacy research has become a joke. And I don't know of any Men's Rights Groups that engages in it, but even from one of OUR groups I would advise to never take advocacy "studies" w/out a large grain of salt.
What's annoying is that everyone KNOWS advocacy "studies" are bogus. If some group that was for FATHERS produced a study that was all roses and only had good things to say about fathers I would look at their study too. Sorry, but the truth is important to me.
The great thing about most MRAs I meet is that due to all the feminazi propaganda they have seen the MRA movement is one that demands facts so we don't look like the Rad Fems.
Point being, it SOUNDS legit to the public who has no idea what goes on behind the scenes.
Discounted study #34234
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 30, @01:13PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
While this may be a minor issue in itself, this shows exactly feminists operate and how they are aided and abetted by the media. The study is clearly flawed, for several reasons.
according to the study by Catalyst, a nonprofit research firm seeking to advance women in business
Yep. Just like we believe studies by tobacco companies proving that smoking isn't addictive.
The report analyzes 353 Fortune 500 companies' financial performance from 1996 to 2000.
Why not all 500 Fortune companies? By "financial performance" of course one would think revenue, earnings, and earnings growth. But, no correlation was found there, or else it would be trumped loud and far by the study's authors, so
35 percent higher return on equity and a 34 percent greater return to shareholders than firms with fewer female executives
Ah, stock prices. Other financial "analysts" have shown a connection between market performance and whether the AFC or NFC team wins the Super Bowl. And why was only the 5-year period from 1996 to 2000 studied? Financial data should be available at least through 2002, no?
And a lot would depend on the time period. For instance, Enron is among the companies studied with the highest percentage of women in top jobs.
Ah, that explains why they cut it off at year 2000...
That is, the study didn't find that companies perform well because more women are in top jobs, but that there's a connection between gender diversity and financial performance, and it's statistically significant.
I rather doubt it, after performing the right corrections for all the multiple comparisons used (If you torture the data long enough, you can always make it confess).
Of course, the media don't bother to get comments from anyone critical of the study when it "proves" what they want to hear.
Vince S.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 30, @01:15PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Of COURSE women are better execs than men.
Haven't you heared?, women are better than men at EVERYTHING!
They're even better at being MEN than MEN are.
I have enough agravation...,
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nothing at this time. Why? I shall elaborate.
I will concede my personal observations on the following point: companies with significant diversity in upper management do perform better. Diversity is a very good thing for most companies. Technology groups need accountants. Insurance companies need actuaries. Pharmaceutical concerns need legal representatives. As you can understand this position can be framed in numerous ways, and diversity can occupy several meanings at once.
But this article was written by a woman feeding on an agenda driven by women who are attempting to mine statistical results to bolster a preconceived outlook that appeals and validates women, which is no different than chasing a story of some gal fishing for catfish with a hook baited with catfish then snapping a picture of her holding the hooked catfish bait and front-paging that photo the next day with a caption that reads ‘Gal catches catfish!’
Because of these facts I conclude their methods are in question. I would have to read the study itself and inspect its methodology to infer any actual relevance.
Yes, diversity certainly helps many corporations succeed. Yes, I know women can create and build and operate very successful companies. Yes, I believe women are important and vital to society. Yes, I happen to love ‘em on occasion. Yet I submit to you the following: Would this great country have ever been if it were left to the devices of women exclusively?
Of course not.
The Shark (a bit of a sexist prig today, and rather proud of it)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You didn't write a book about how to be a jerk did you? Or was that a different Shark?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ya know, fuck it .. it's friday and I aint gonna do a logical or insightful post on this.
Ya know what this story is? It's an E.B.J.
Editorial - Blow - Job.
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the things that jumped out at me right away was the fact that 2000 was when the stock market melted down. It would be like a study of companies in the years 1925-1929 - there is a big "so what" factor here. One stock I held which sold for $75 in 2000 has been averaging $13-$15, and has been as low as $5.80. Another which was selling for about $65, has been selling for $4-$6, and has been below $1.70. I don't know what the "diversity" factor was, but I know the management sucked because I worked there. It made Dilbert's job look attractive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 31, @07:13PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
...having navigated through many engineering start-up projects with success, I will say based upon my experience this is how things work:
1. Start a company with mostly men who are at the top of their careers who will do what it takes to get the job done.
2. The company either folds or generates revenue.
3. If the company is successful the following occurs:
A. HR (human resources) becomes powerful within the company.
B. More women execs and middle management are hired.
C. “Corporate Culture” becomes as important as productivity
Think about it...
Anon - to keep PC mongers away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You just laid out exactly the timeline of my last company.
But in addition to women taking over a lot of middle management, they gained exclusive control of HR. It is a PC girl's club there now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 03, @10:49AM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
It is natural that women abound in middle management AND especially in HR. They are soooo much better at controlling than building. Think about your own lives, you build and work to make a better life for your self and family - then the wife takes over and controlls the very breath in in your lungs.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
