When will the world learn?
NZ, the left-liberal cultural backwater, along with Canada, has committed one of the two cardinal sins:
a. Never appoint a leftist to anything, least of all govt;
b. Never appoint a woman.
Reason for the latter?
a. She’s invariably the wrong sort – Gillard, Clinton, May or else she’s a Marissa Mayer or Aung San Suu Kyi. They give off the impression of being a compromise person, a soft leader after, perhaps, a right bastard, but sooner or later, it is not good.
b. The main reason it’s not good is that even though it does not fall completely apart, it stagnates and doesn’t move forward, because of the nature of Woman, who is there to balance factions, appease, bring peace, be the nurturing mother, or else she’s a hang -em high like Carly Fiorina or Flint. That doesn’t get the necessary things done in a decisive way. A woman can never drain a swamp.
c. The only three reasons women are appointed are:
[i] Virtue signalling in today’s climate;
[ii] They are easier to control for the PTB;
[iii] It was going down anyway.
This blog has consistently said the above but also that Woman has other qualities which make her peerless, important qualities [although the crop of the last two decades have been pretty poor specimens overall]. Women should, just as Men should, play to their strengths.
Some people cite Meg Whitman as a success but many beg to differ:
The problem doesn’t start with the CEO; it starts with the board that selected her. HP was fundamentally a hardware, services and printing company. While Carly Fiorina had invested heavily in software development, Mark Hurd reversed much of this effort while he was there (which may make you wonder what the hell he is actually doing running Oracle). One fascinating thing is that there has been a significant turnover in board members at HP over last 15 years, which may explain why they repeated the mistake tied to both Fiorina and Hurd’s failures—making Meg Whitman the CEO and executive chairman.
The thing is, it’s subtle. Both Mayer and Whitman can point to some successes here and there and these are blown out of proportion as major victories when the fundamental problems for the company are not being addressed, because of the nature of the CEO. Like Jim Hacker, she ‘does all right’ in a paint by numbers way but does not inspire, lead – she just takes care of day to day business and always with that female chip on the shoulder about kudos.
And as the article says, there are plenty of men failing too – start with boards of companies, political party chairmanship. They put the wrong people in, for reasons listed further up in the post. There are vastly more men, therefore there will be proportionally more failures. That does not disguise that the percentage of failures of women in key roles is almost total, with a few shining exceptions here and there – people who access the expertise on tap.
But ultimately, it goes nowhere. Great administering on a day by day basis – see Sarah Huckabee in the US, Hope Hicks … but that’s it.
In NZ, for that double reason at the top, it will be a slow grind downwards, as it has been for every nation that’s ever done it.