One of them, the Women's Leadership Fund, has not yet been launched, but has duly been included in the article because, let's face it, chicks get credit for what they WANT to do the same way that dudes get credit for what they HAVE done.
I have often stated on this website (and likely elsewhere, and to my wife, family, and friends till they are all ready to weep) that women generally are not qualified for certain key social positions - military combat (because of physical limitations), military leadership (because, being unqualified for combat, they can't possibly possess adequate understanding of combat leadership skills), for the NFL (because of physical limitations), religious leadership (because their tendency to rely on feelings clouds their moral judgment), and business and political leadership (because their tendency to interpret reality in light of feelings and existing relationships is antithetical to correct decision-making in these two fields). However, when a (rare) woman comes along who can play with the big boys (Joan Jett, Margaret Thatcher), society should certainly stand out of the way and let her produce - as long as her production is comparable to that of the men she is competing with!
The fund in question targets investments in companies that have "significant female representation in leadership."
Wonderful.
So now, finally, we get to see that female leadership leads to increased RESULTS in the form of HIGHER RETURNS? Now we finally get to see that where women are unleashed in business, their superior abilities, collaborative thinking, and general righteousness is going to lead to an increased bottom line?
Uhhhhh, not so much.
We are being warned, by backhanded, politically-correct implication, that investors may have to expect... errrrrrr, "accept," somewhat lower returns...
"Any time you buy a fund that has investment restrictions on it—whether they be social or religious or industry-related—you have to be willing to accept lower returns in exchange for things that are important to you," says Adam Bold, founder of the Mutual Fund Store, an investment management firm with more than 65 U.S. locations. "That doesn't mean that you'll get lower returns, but going into it . . . you have to be willing to accept them."
How's that whole "Anything he can do I can do better!" thingy workin' out for you femtards?
Posts
Another reason men are better bets in commerce and war is because they are expendable. You don't have to allocate resources to non-performers, nor do you need to waste any time arguing the toss with men who can't find their place and pull their weight - you just let them go and worry no more.
ReplyDeleteIt's one of Nature's ironies that it's better to be reliant on expendable resources - it gives you more options.
There are women that can make money, but after some 30 years in business with small companies (Av T/O £30million, those women are far and few between. Most follow ill thought out business plans and over time produce lower returns or losses. Personally, I would never invest in a company with too many women directors or senior managers - I'd be backing a loser if I did.
ReplyDelete