Women better than men in small business?

What if we start to count the number of ways in which men are better at business? Would it be a nice little article to be featured on New York Times? Or will you be fired and thrown off to streets after immediately being labeled as “chauvinist pig” or “neandelthaal”, possibly along with some phony sexual harassment charges from 50 plus old, 180-pound, unhappy feminist type in other department?

It can only be a nice little article when you are discussing ways in which women are superior. Not other way around. Never.

Maybe there is really some grain of truths that women are in some ways better at small business, especially if you limit to consider only certain aspects of owning small businesses. (you know, skills like pick up nuances and juggle work-life balance) But maybe the same reason that gives women some edge over men in small business maybe causing women to fall behind men in the race for climbing corporate ladder. Running small business and running large, multi-national corporations are quire different matters, which require different skill sets and attributes to succeed. Does the author of this article want to discuss that? I bet he doesn’t. But at least he is smart enough to figure out that he will be safe in this PC world as long as he is pandering to feminists.

Victimized through camera

Apparently there seems to be no limit as to the ability of women to feel victimized, anytime, anywhere, directly or indirectly, real or imaginary. I think women are by nature more likely to feel victimized or voice victimization than men, and men more likely to brush off such feeling of victimization, but that tendency has been put on steroid by gender feminists who trumpeted the idea to all women that all unhappiness or uncomfortableness, or anything short of full happiness in life is due to patriarchal oppression. Women have been “trained” by these feminists to find seeds of victimization and to feel victimized at the slightest provocation. And the politically-correct institution, including the courts, are more than happy to endorse, through punishing males, women’s feeling of victimization.

Harley Woos Female Bikers

What if Harley goes only a little further to introduce “pink” Harley? Would feminists go on banana again for Harley’s stereotyping women into pink color? So far no visible objection has been raised to Harley making smaller, less intimidating models tailored especially for women, the decision of which of course is based on (sexist?) assumption that women are smaller and has less physical strength to haul big bikes.

"Glass cliff"

Yes. Of course, it’s always men’s fault, and the entire patriarchy is conniving to set women up -by making them CEOs!!!

How much special considerations and treatments do these supposedly “superior sex” need? For radical feminists infatuated with bottomless sense of gender entitlement, simply giving women priority consideration for lucrative jobs (as do most Western countries) or setting up government-mandated gender quota (such as in Norway) are not enough, but also need to make sure that the companies women are affirmative-actioned into are successful, profitable companies - so that those women could keep getting those fat checks (presumably to balance the so-called gender pay-gap?) and take all the credits (to prove their gender’s superiority?) when the companies do stay on track and keep making profits independently of newly hired affirmative action CEOs in tight skirts.

Women who are candidates for CEO positions no less can’t even figure out if the companies they are applying are in trouble, and ready to whine and blame it on patriarchy when it indeed fail? They are worse than 22-year old college glads (boys). Hey, do we really still need female CEOs?
What’s the next new entitlement for women? A quota for women CEOs in well-to-do business, instead of failing ones? Mandatory appointment of men in these failing business? (to tarnish male CEO’s reputation in general)

Once the entitlement is conferred upon to one demographic group, it will be taken for granted by them and the demand for further entitlement will grow, instead of efforts by them to try to get on their feet.

Who needs female baseball umpire? (and which fish needs a bicycle?)

I always wonder, what happen if male players bark at female referee? Would it constitute “gender violence”? – since yelling is also a form of gender violence, as we are told (with one proviso that it is directed against women by men of course, if it is directed against men by women, it is 100% legitimate form of self-defence) Or is it a workplace harassment? Maybe as a result, the tender ref would not have high self-esteem. Maybe she will feel not welcomed or that players are hostile to her. Maybe he is not just protesting the ref’s judgment, maybe he’s trying to embarrass the ref in front of large crowd to make his point that this female ref should not be here.

And let’s not forget that even if, for the sake of the argument supposed that- a female umpire starts calling games in MLB (hope it never happens), feminists are not going to stop there. In fact, they will NEVER STOP at anything. Once one female umpire “shatter the ceiling”, then there will be calls for more female refs (until the ratio reach their favourite 5-50) and arguments on female umpires not being able to call opening games or playoffs or world series, etc., etc. Don’t let the feminists floodgate open by not letting them in at all in the first place.

Battle of sexes in tennis

I remember a few years back when the money earned by top female tennis pros in tournament prizes toped that of top male pros for a brief period (I am not a big tennis fan so I don’t remember when exactly), there was no voice from the same crowd calling for “equal pay for equal work”, but newspapers and politically-correct sports journalists were quite triumphant and ecstatic about women’s superior earning power in tennis. But that was then.

What can you expect from people who have no problem glorifying Ms King’s victory over male (ex-) champion in the battle of sexes and lionizing it as one of the proudest moment in the history of women in sports? What will happen if Nadar or someone around that level play against over-aged, fat, retired female tennis champion? Would he barely edge out after an exhaustingly long match or win without even breaking a sweat? Actually the King’s match should be listed as one of the dark moment when the reigning female champion had so much difficulty in beating old, retired male champion.

Female college coach in need of salvation by Title IX-style gender quota

When even die-hard feminists find it rather difficult to grumble about today’s women’s collegiate sports, and before leisurely start crushing down yet another male sports in pursuit of statistical gender equality (ummm, what will be next target – wrestling again?), they started to complain about the status of female coach in the collegiate sports. Even though title IX was intended to help female students, in other words, kids, feminists don’t bother expanding the scope of the law to include female coaches, or adults, as long as it benefit them. Talk of a jump-wagon mentality. Well, since Title IX in feminists’ worldview was not merely meant to increase the number of women in sports at college level, but rather to introduce sweeping change in the patriarchal structure within universities, I guess it’s alright to use it as a weapon to advance their agenda. But still I think feminists may wish to stop infantilizing female adults and treating them like students or kids who need kid-glove treatment from large bureaucracy just to keep their existence, or otherwise male coaches will start seeing female coaches in the same level as students, who are and in the constant need of multiple layers of protection by multiple layers of bureaucracies (Federal, State and university). And I guess feminists don't want that to happen, right? Indeed my guess is that they will yell at men in shrieking voice again if that happens.

Look how hard it is to sack female coaches once they are installed in the position, valid evaluation of female coaches’ poor performance would not matter a bit in the eyes of feminist lawyers, as they can always present female coaches’ unsubstantiated allegations as evidence and paint the college as an institution that is “sexist”, a magic word that blow away any logic or reasoning. This is a point that anyone who is in a position to hire someone for a position should keep in mind – firing of affirmative action employees will be much, much harder than of non-affirmative action employees. In addition to the prospect of facing almost-certain lawsuits by feminist, they will get constant pressure from affirmative action office for meeting certain gender/racial quota for positions.