Tuesday, January 12, 2016

Sorry, I guess we WILL lower our standards

This is exactly how not to handle criticism from feminists:
Michael Moritz, the chairman of Sequoia Capital and one of the most successful investors in Silicon Valley history, has amended his televised remarks on the lack of women partners at his firm.

Discussing the topic on Bloomberg TV’s Studio 1.0, Moritz said, “We look very hard. What we’re not prepared to do is to lower our standards. But if there are fabulously bright, driven women who are really interested in technology, very hungry to succeed, and can meet our performance standards, we’d hire them all day and night.”

That comment, televised on Wednesday night, was met with outrage on Twitter, where people condemned Moritz for archaic thinking and for not working hard enough to attract a diverse partnership. Ellen Pao, who unsuccessfully sued the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caulfield Byers for gender discrimination, tweeted: “Wow … pipeline and standards are such lame excuses.” Chamath Palihapitiya, a former executive at Facebook and founder of the venture fund Social Capital Partnership, tweeted: “This point of view is ridiculous. Sign and language of the past.”
So standards are of the past. No wonder America has become steadily stupider and poorer as more women entered the workforce instead of having children and raising families.

Women fear impartial and objective standards for two reasons. One, because they usually can't compete very well with men when forced to do so directly. Two, because impartial and objective standards prevent women from utilizing their sexual assets and their social skills, as both require subjective standards that are applied in an arbitrary manner.

That is why attacking objective standards applied impartially and delegitimizing them is always the primary goal of feminists and early entryists. If Moritz is serious about lowering Sequoia's standards in response to the feminist demands, you can safely bet against the company's future performance as it is gradually SJW-converged.

16 comments:

Ahazuerus said...

It remains to be seen whether or not he's as stupid as the Pentagon.

woodenavaklu said...

In other words feminists hatred of meritocracy is their admission that they cannot compete with men.

Timmy3 said...

"people condemned Moritz for archaic thinking and for not working hard enough to attract a diverse partnership."

So Moritz must work harder and not the woman he might hire.

Greg Doyle said...

Talk about pushing an agenda. When you're citing an unsuccessful lawsuit by a tech dropout, how is that supposed to help make your point?

liberranter said...

It remains to be seen whether or not he's as stupid as the Pentagon.

While it's difficult to imagine that being possible, even if he were "Pentagon Stupid," the worst that could posdibly happen is massive monetary losses to his investors. Real "Pentagon Stupid," on the other hand, is going to result in loss of lives --mostly men's lives-- once it becomes all-pervasive.

swiftfoxmark2 said...

Equality is loser talk.

Sokrates said...

http://freedompowerandwealth.com
Yeah – lower the standard, so that everybody feels nice but ruin your ability to compete in a worldwide competition. The competitors of America will be very happy about our dullness.

Cataline Sergius said...

Ellen Pao's crusade against competence continues valiantly.

The SJW CEO that wrecked Reddit in the name of whatever cause was flitting across her four volt mind, marches on. Destroying any business that catches her eye with single-minded determination, in the name of trans-sex-gender-whatever-equality.

#resistcapitalism

Tom Roberts said...

Ahazuerus..^ when asked by Rand Corp who surveyed 1000+ special ops if women should be included, the answer was f-no!

Fatebekind said...

There is a proxy advisory company that recommends to its clients (institutional advisors,banks,hedge funds,pension funds etc.) how to vote their shares for annual stockholder meetings. They have recently changed their voting policies for Board seats. They will recommend that their clients and other shareholders withhold their votes on Board nominees who are not diverse enough.Previously they would recommend withholds for performance,attendance or compensation issues,but now will recommend withholding votes if the Board has too many white males.

Blastman said...

He should start out by calling these complainers a bunch of anti-male feminist bigots.

He should ask them why they are targeting only male dominated fields with their complaints. Have they complained about or done anything lately to help address the gender imbalance in female dominated fields such as nursing or grade school teaching that are 90%+ female? Tell them when these fields have a 50/50 male-female ratio he will start looking into hiring more women.

Feminists are always mouthing off about gender equality but only ever target and complain about male dominated occupations. Call them out on their hypocrisy.

Rick said...

I read the article. The phrase that galls me is when a company says "We need to do better." The proper response should be " needs to do better at measuring up. We will not sacrifice our customer's trust by reducing our standards."

Rick said...

Oops. Shouldn't have used angle brackets to highlight text, it got cut. Here's the proper response phrase: "*Complaining identity group* needs to do better at measuring up. We will not sacrifice our customer's trust by reducing our standards."

teh y said...

feminist strategy:

step 1: 'all we want is an equal chance'
step 2: 'that equal chance nonsense was just Not Fair! get more women in and we don't care how'

tz said...

Diversity is like diversifying your portfolio to include companies guaranteed to sell at a loss or go bankrupt.
There is a "diversity" which corresponds to "Hybrid Vigor", but it isn't what they are talking about. If you already have sufficient ubernerds, then a new, different perspective might be welcome. If you don't, then "diversity" means trying to pick winners by throwing darts blindfolded.

IanSean said...

Impartial and objective standards probably origated among communities of men interested in not having a death duel every time a lady's feelings got hurt

Women would understandably revile a male appeal to reason as submission to a dominant power

This may be why feminists are so interested in using political power to harm any men they can -- after all, any men who can be harmed are inferior, right?

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.