Business Week: Too Much Testosterone on Wall Street?

If women had been running our banks, might we have avoided the sub-prime mess and the resulting economic meltdown?
Halla Tomasdottir, a prominent Icelandic financier, answers yes.

Prove it, or STFU. More to the point, prove that not only would womens risk-aversion have prevented the "mess", but also that it would have resulted in better overall economic performance (hint: this is impossible as an economy cannot grow without risk and we all know what most women do when confronted with risk...they hide behind men).

If women had been running our banks, none of us would have made any money on our investments in the past 10 years because women avoid risks.

Tomasdottir herself and her partner Kristin Petursdottir, who set up Audur Capital in 2007, recruiting mainly women and exercising risk awareness in their choice of investments.

Yeah, they're sure going to attract plenty of clients: "We don't take any risks, but we'll demand the same management fees as the men who sweat and toil to decide which risks make sense!". Wow. What a deal: little to no growth with the same fees you'd pay a competent investment firm!

I'll bet you real money that this vaginas-only financial company makes one hell of a lot less money than most other companies working at the same business in the long term. Profit varies directly with risk, and women run like hell when they see risk, thereby eliminating their ability to make substantial profits on investments.

Sure, women like to avoid risks and avoiding risks might have reduced the impact of the subprime loan crisis, but male risk-taking is what is responsible for economic growth. As with all things, women prefer the center of the herd, the nice, safe, average, middle-of-the-road position. Men make up the outliers who take all the risks which is why they're also the outliers when we measure economic outcomes.

How very typical of reality-impaired feminists to grab the headline of the day and try to twist it into "women are better than men". Yeah, if you never want to see a profit or growth they are.

As for this unsubstantiated, blatantly sexist filth appearing in the likes of Business Week: I want to see detailed analyses of the vaginas-only company's investment decisions and investment timing that demonstrate conclusively and in a statistically valid way that gender was the only cause of variance in the outcome experienced by their company (a simple exercise in forensic accounting), or I want to see a published retraction and apology to ALL men from Business Week. Otherwise it will just join the thousands of other misandric MSM rags on the trash heap.

AMEN!!!!

"Kristin Petursdottir, who set up Audur Capital in 2007, recruiting mainly women"

How can she get away with that? She's admitting she's sexist.

...Broadsword: in most of the Scandanavian countries, much of the rest of Europe, parts of Asia and all of North America, it's only sexist when you preferentially hire men. In most of Europe and North America you can have an all-white, straight, Christian workforce as long as everyone has a vagina. And you'll win awards for being "progressive".

Everyone knows that women of the majority race, religion, sexual orientation, and every other feature from the middle- and upper-class of the economy are actually poor, downtrodden minorities deserving of the special rights and protections reserved for people who live on, well, reserves. I'm so glad that wealthy white women are finally getting a break instead of the people who actually need some assistance. It proves just how compassionate and caring all women really are when they help themselves to the scraps that society has tossed to people in actual need.

(Feel free to continue reading when you're done heaving your lunch all over the monitor, I'm done with doublethink and sarcasm for a while).

In these countries women can't be sexist, non-whites (or non-whichever-color-appears-most in that particular country) can't be racist and gay people can't be phobic about much of anything. At least not according to the laws.

I did the math once. In North America, the target of all anti-discrimination laws and racist/sexist hiring schemes constitutes about 16-18% of the population. That's right: 82-84% of the population has special rights and protections from a 16-18% minority. That would be equivalent to granting every American-born citizen special legal rights to use against all immigrants (whether legal or illegal, citizen or non-citizen). Makes great sense, doesn't it?