~ archived since 2018 ~

New round of outrage on social media after top venture capitalist Mike Moritz of Sequoia Capital says he won't lower standards to increase women in the company

December 4, 2015

Summary: Sir Michael Moritz comments that they'd hire tonnes of women if they could meet the standards of Sequoia Capital. Predictably, social media goes wild with emotional outbursts to all the 'misogyny' and how Moritz isn't working 'hard enough' to attract a more diverse workforce.

These people have no idea how opaque and competitive it is not only to work in a top VC firm but to become partner, no less. Most of them are successful startup founders, which explains why there are so few women to choose from.

Regardless of your views on venture capital and whether they actually provide values to their investors his next comments are pretty accurate:

“I think the issue begins in the high schools where women, particularly in America and also in Europe, tend to elect not to study the sciences when they’re 11 and 12. So suddenly the hiring pool is much smaller.”

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/TheRedPill.

/r/TheRedPill archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

Post Information
Title New round of outrage on social media after top venture capitalist Mike Moritz of Sequoia Capital says he won't lower standards to increase women in the company
Author InscrutablePUA
Upvotes 410
Comments 103
Date December 4, 2015 4:09 AM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit /r/TheRedPill
Archive Link
Original Link
Red Pill terms in post

[–]TRP VanguardArchwinger347 points348 points  (33 children) | Copy Link

This is small potatoes. A full 30% of the tech sector is female. A full 8% of senior VC investors are female.

Did you know that 99% of sanitation workers are male? This is a far more dire situation. What the fuck is the sanitation industry doing to try to attract a more diverse workforce? I demand answers.

[–]1InscrutablePUA[S] 87 points88 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Did you know that 99% of sanitation workers are male?

Obviously the result of a cis-misogynist shitlord conspiracy

[–]TRP VanguardArchwinger123 points124 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

It begins when they're young. Nobody tells young girls that they ought to grow up to be garbage men.

The situation is so serious that we actually punish teachers who tell young girls to look into a future as a sanitation worker. That's systemic sexism keeping women down and punishing anybody who would dare to break the good ol' boy network among garbage "men."

[–][deleted] 75 points76 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Garbage "person." Check your entitlement to be a sanitation engineer you shitlord. /s

[–]TRPn00b15 points16 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Garbage "entity." Check your human-kin privilege, shitlord.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Fuck, you're right. I'm a white CIS male Shitlord. Maybe a white CIS male genocide will do the trick. The world runs itself, right?

[–]beginner_17 points18 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Yeah it's funny. As a kid I wanted to be a garbage man. Simply because the guys that came by our place now and then tossed me some stuff like a tennis ball or some other still useful toy.

[–]dudeweresmyvan20 points21 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Plus, they only work once a week. amirite

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Where else could we lord over shit?

[–]mrmeyhemn92 points93 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

sanitation and infrastructure needs 50% female workers and feminists shouldn't rest until this is the case. but...hamster

[–][deleted] 50 points51 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

It's never been about equality, only power

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorVasiliyZaitzev38 points39 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

It's never been about equality, only power

That and receiving the benefits of something someone else has earned.

[–][deleted] 23 points24 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

sounds like a good definition of power to me.

  • warning, there be dragons below

I always assumed it's the same reason that we hate shitty leaders. The idea of the alpha of the clan. Sure, he gets first dibs on the best resources (women, food, wealth). But the obligation from that is when something threatens the tribe, he's the first one out there defending it.

or, the best weapon for a man is a gun, the best weapon for a woman, is a man.

It's the contract of leadership.

When you get someone who wants everything, and doesn't fit their end of the bargain, it's unnatural, hundreds of thousands of years has imprinted that on our lizard brain. Guys had no problem giving sacrifice after sacrifice for a woman. In the end, you get your basic needs taken care of (sex, children) but that's no longer there, which means until those power hungry types step up, it's never going to be seen as anything more than greed and psychopathy.

Which it totally is.

Always laughed though, it's never the margret thatchers of the world bitching about this, those are the ones too busy getting it done. It's only ever the 'trickle down' women who bitch about it professionally. they don't want the work to get the power, only the legislation and policy changes that those women can give them, you know, as a reward for championing their assistance.

Then you laugh when those same powerful women kick the ladder out from under them, you know, because the crab bucket is in full effect.

[–]2Overkillengine4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I always assumed it's the same reason that we hate shitty leaders. The idea of the alpha of the clan. Sure, he gets first dibs on the best resources (women, food, wealth). But the obligation from that is when something threatens the tribe, he's the first one out there defending it.

This brings up something I've noticed:

Some people here that think they would be able to Alpha their way through a socioeconomic collapse.

If they were really thinking, they would realize being the AMOG means you have a target painted on you and the moment failure happens, regardless of reason or fault, one is getting ate alive (possibly literally) by angry Betas and Gammas.

Better to learn how to Sigma when needed. If you live by social status, you'll die by it too.

[–]Bearhardy1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I live in a country that's going trough a socioconomic collapse, and let me tell you society right now it's fucking stupid and crumbling people havr no idea how anything works, they blame anyone for anything, are corrupt as fuck I have seen the most moral and hopeful people fucking broken, everybody worships consumerism and this crisis brings it up in a way you would belive, "alphas" become straight A students so they can get a good job and keep moving forward, only difference between alpha and beta is the amount of effort you are willing to put to raise yourself

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Chicken little shit makes me laugh. Rome took centuries to crumble

[–]freeza15 2 points2 points [recovered] | Copy Link

The first half of your comment sounded familiar. Perhaps you've already seen the video by Simon Sinek, as he explains exactly that.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I haven't, but it's good to see I'm not. Crazy

[–]Brave_Horatius0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Reading a book at the moment called leaders eat last.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

In the military we do the same thing...

I wouldn't suggest alpha male me as leadership

[–]Brave_Horatius0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

That's actually one of his examples. Marines at mess.

[–]Jaereth 17 points17 points [recovered] | Copy Link

I always say this whenever someone brings up the "Their aren't enough women in X career, why are there not women?"

Like you said, we need more female garbage truck drivers far more than any of those other fields. They are basically being shut out of that career and it's time we ask the hard questions why?

They are not applying for those jobs you say? Still inexcusable. We need to start some committees and throw hundreds of thousands of dollars into a study at the local college to find out why girls feel like they can't choose a career in sanitation Because obviously it's a problem, right?

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Like you said, we need more female garbage truck drivers far more than any of those other fields. They are basically being shut out of that career and it's time we ask the hard questions why?

Now that garbage truck drivers don't have to do jack shit but drive it up and aim the arm right and boom the thing picks it up and dumps it into the truck they'll flock to it particularly if they can get $20/hr and call the real men to deal with any big garbage pieces like furniture that needs to get tossed into the back.

[–]1Jaereth2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

In my condo area there is a guy who gets out of the truck at every stop, and manually dumps our bins into a big bin on the front of the truck. When that's full, it dumps the big bin overhead into the back with the arms.

Needless to say, I have yet to see a woman doing this job lol.

[–]juliusstreicher7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Thank you! It's high time that somebody man up and stop being afraid of strong, independent women on the garbage truck.

[–]ItIsMyPrivilege4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link


Being a VC is seen as some easy cushy job to make a shitload of money. Nevermind I took a class on VC valuations and got a little clearer picture of what they do. The few women thought the class was difficult and boring.

SJWs like to talk shit about Mark Cuban and other successful self made types, but they don't realize the sacrifices they made to get there.

People in these firms are most likely pretty naturally red pill. Also, finance is a study of risk. If, on average, women perform worse than men, why would a financial institution take a risk of hiring the woman who doesn't seem as qualified, doesn't interview as well, and doesn't have that killer instinct like the male interviewees? It would reflect poorly on them if they had more women than men employed.

There may be women who can cut it, but not as many men and that's because some jobs just require something men have been doing out of biological imperative: Sacrifice

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Did you know that 99% of sanitation workers are male? This is a far more dire situation. What the fuck is the sanitation industry doing to try to attract a more diverse workforce? I demand answers.

Well, I mean they are misogynist SHITLORDS being a SHITLORD is technically part of the job right?

[–]IronMeltsinmyHands-2 points-1 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

fuck your misogyny asshole.


[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon109 points110 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

Overall the plan is to gain equality of outcome for inequality of effort, under the guise of equality of opportunity.


= not doing what women want

and how Moritz isn't working 'hard enough' to attract a more diverse workforce.

= blaming men for women's failings

All this bullshit gains traction because of the myth that "women are every bit the equal of men". Once humanity accepts that women are different, we can start to accept that men are more suited to some things than women, and hopefully stop all this politically correct nonsense.

[–]2popthatpill47 points48 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

The uterus is the greatest rent-extraction device of all time.

[–]tb8767022 points23 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

That one movie Alexander with Colin Farrell, his version of Alexader (that spoke with a half-Irish accent for some reason) said a great line about his mother in that movie:

"It's a high ransom she charges for nine months of lodging in the womb"

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That would be a pretty good quote for any TRP dude who's mother is a complete and total bitch to them all the time.

[–]TheDreadPill1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

No it's not. It's the strength of the state that extracts rents, not the uterus.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No but putting pussy on the pedestal is what enabled women to use the strength of the state by proxy. Hence the uterus being given all this power.

[–]Redpillc0re18 points19 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

They are not coy about what they want to do. Watch the responses:

This point of view is ridiculous. Sign and language of the past.

standards are such lame excuses

So having standards is out of the window because women want in, right here , right now. Men should only be working on how to "bring more women in".

[–]Hoodwink3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

One of the reasons they honestly post these responses is because in their whole lives, they've never been actually held to standards (especially in public). And this is not only a personal experience, but they see the same (non)-standard applied to other women.

Feminists tend to get it all backwards/inversed where they say that women are only judged for their appearances. It's really that they aren't actually judged for anything, but appearances. 'Sexual objectification' isn't the problem. It's everything else. Sexual objectification is basically just trying to blame men for the biological differences and the sexual market. It's a complete mis-identification of the problem - it's perfectly acceptable to be judged by sexual attractiveness when it's suited, but the problem is that women defend each other no matter what to the point of standing up and lying to protect their gender like some big sisterhood. And men who want to fuck them will often do the same. Everyone protects women from their own mistakes and their own stupidity. They never get called out.

Feminism, in all it's claims about being a study of sex and gender, is not actually taking in the real world sexual (or social) dynamics. It instead invents its own rules and tells everyone to play by them (and makes the 'freaks' in charge). It's a lot like 'communisim' vs. some kind of market-socialism. Feminism is shangri-la hippie-commune fantasy-communism. The fantasy comes first and last - and breaking it makes you an enemy.

[–]1nzgs3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Their complaints would imply that firms like his are deliberately sabotaging themselves. Similarly the wage gap meme implies that firms sabotage themselves by hiring more expensive men. None of it makes any economic sense whatsoever when seen through a feminist lens, which is probably why they have to rationalise everything via the nebulous workings of the "patriarchy".

It's a lot like how any number of religious contradictions and absurdities can be rationalised away with "God works in mysterious ways".

[–]Bearhardy1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is also why socialism doesn't work

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

even if it isn't the case, they don't go to high schools to bitch at teachers for not teaching girls science better.

[–]whenfoom0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

That first sentence is perfect.

[–]JDiculous50 points51 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

It's not even about gender equality, it's about advancing women and bringing down men. If there was a top VC firm run entirely by women who only hired women, there would be no outrage and these same feminists would probably be celebrating. It's like a fucking battle of the sexes, like at recess when kids play boys vs. girls. Except these are grown-ass adults.

[–]MuleJuiceMcQuaid53 points54 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

A company that's entirely 100% women would be praised for its diversity.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sure as long as they hired some lesbians, blacks and asians to cover the diversity requirements and didn't just have a company full of straight white women alone.

[–]PeanutFlavor19 points20 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Eventually they'll lose. The film industry is a good example; they can bitch and moan about "sexism" but whenever they make a movie that is feminist approved, the it tanks on the big screen..or never even gets there.

I'm waiting for the first time women get that draft card now that they are allowed to serve in battle.

[–]F_Dingo4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm waiting for the first time women get that draft card now that they are allowed to serve in battle.

That'll be the fucking day LOL!

[–]KingoftheAssholes3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Very true. Can't wait till the next ghostbusters movie. /s

[–]Hoodwink0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

That's one way to really get a depopulation agenda started. Let platoons of women panic and die in enemy fire.

The reason why men are the expendable sex is because women's womb is more valuable to a tribe than a man's penis.

[–]RedPillProphet1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

With 7 billion of us around, the world could really use some depopulation. Their wombs are worthless when the world doesn't need more people.

[–][deleted] 43 points44 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

This is the same Michael Moritz who recently donated £75 million to fund a scholarship for underprivileged students at Oxford University. He's a good man.

[–]1InscrutablePUA[S] 16 points17 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Those are the kind of details that will never rise above the outrage

[–]BradPill2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

But not specifically to women only - so he still is a misogynist patriarch! /s

[–]2popthatpill33 points34 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

As recently as a decade ago (possibly less - maybe five years ago?), it was still acceptable to oppose affirmative action for women. What we're seeing now is that the social licence to oppose affirmative action for women is being withdrawn. All this has happened in 10-15 years or less, ie. since the start of the century.

Equal opportunity didn't deliver enough economic rents to women, so now they're taking stronger action.

[–]marplaneit15 points16 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

As a Non-American, why all these strong independant woman don't fucking start their joint ventures, hire only woman, so they can be strong, independant and rich.

Fucking phsycos, they are taking your freedom away.

[–]Hoodwink4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

The reason is because they actually understand that they need to leech off of productive men (support positions). For the most part, women don't want to be active producers. They enjoy a much more comfortable position because they can expect resources from the nearest man they're having sex with. Their income is never really about producing more to impress and sacrifice for a mate. It's an additive to whatever man they can get on the open market.

You're mistaking that you think their words actually mean what they actually say.

It's just about access to resources. It's not about earning resources. 77% on the dollar is an important statistic to feminists because it's about what women total earn compared to total men. When you take a look at the big picture about what jobs men and women take on the whole, women actually come out ahead considering their stress levels, vacation/sick time, and time spent raising kids. It's amazing that women get 77% compared to men. It's unreasonable... it's that high.

[–]marplaneit2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm a Med Student, in the school there is 3 woman for every man.

Now you get out of the school, and all the TOP Doctors are men, not even joking. All the experts that have come to my school so far, to give us some lecture on something, are males, no exceptions.

They can't fucking produce, that's right. I have only met 1 woman entrepeneur who succeeded, she was a psyco, lier, manipulative, on pain killers and shit cause she was stressed as fuck, with a employee turn over ratio freaking high because she was a crazy bitch, I feel bad for the guys that had her as a boss.

[–]cariboo_j0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I read some psych study that women tend to be more risk averse.

Men are more open to taking risks. It may have something to do with men being the majority of people who do risky things start businesses and run for political office.

Crazy idea, I know.

[–]americanmook9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think it's just that you cannot bully yourself into two things, science and vc jobs. VCs aren't gonna hire unqualified people no matter what because they put up their own money and its too volatile.

[–]Redpillc0re21 points22 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It's ridiculous here to watch the pattern repeating itself over and over

  1. Powerful man has an interview

  2. The topic of women in (x cutting-edge field ) is mentioned. Man makes typical remarks that everyone who is able is accepted, they would wish for more women

  3. Twitter outrage, misogynist blah blah rapist blah blah equality blah blah

  4. Man amends statement, promises to do more to appease the cunts.

  5. Twitter moves on to its next victim

It's clear women don't really care for more women in field x. They just want to express their feeeeeelings. And these guys never fail to give them a sense of vindication. "We need to do more" seems to do the trick well.

Did any of the public humiliations/firings of CEOs in the past decade lead to more women anywhere? Are more women interested in tech? No.

At some point feminazis will get bored of this witchhunt and move to something else. In the meanwhile it's almost funny to watch what they do.

[–]ColdEiric2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Iron-willing 18 points18 points [recovered] | Copy Link

Sequoia has more women working in its China and Israel businesses.

If this doesn't show how bad American women are I don't know what will

[–]gsfw29 points10 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Thats actually normal, the less options women have, the more they will try to earn money. When given the option, men naturally gravitate towards STEM etc whereas women to social sciences languages etc

[–]RojoEscarlata16 points17 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

"Isn't working hard enough to attract a more diverse workforce"

I fucking hate Marxist ideas so fucking much, SC business is not hiring "diverse" people, and the hiring should be done taking into account the skills/aptitudes of a person, not because they have a vagina or different skin.

Comfort have made people so conformist that even jobs ~should~ MOST adapt to them.

Fuck modern people are pathetic.

[–]TRP VanguardArchwinger27 points28 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's business suicide. These businesses are not actually receiving resumes from qualified women, and turning them down for being female. The fact is, they're receiving far fewer resumes from women than men, and the resumes they do get from women are far less qualified on the average.

"If you're getting fewer female applicants, what are you doing about it, shitlord?"

"Uh...hiring from the pool of candidates that do take the trouble to apply?"

"If your female applicants have lesser credentials and worse qualifications, what are you doing about it?"

"Uh...hiring the more qualified candidates so my business succeeds? If we hired an under-qualified candidate, she'd just fail and get fired anyway, so we're avoiding wasting her time."

"Women only have worse qualifications due to unequal opportunities. Why aren't you hiring them anyway to make up for this, shitlord?"

"Uh...because then my business would fail and everyone would lose their jobs, these women included?"

"Nuh uh! You just said you get very few female applicants! Surely not enough to make your big business fail."

"So what you're saying is I should just hire the under-qualified women anyway, give them unimportant work, but pay them lots of money out of my own pocket, just to shut you up?"


[–]xfLyFPS6 points7 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

This is the Soviet Union's shadow. It might have collapsed, but it's ghost is still lingering around and gaining strenght.

[–]Senior Contributorexit_sandman6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I think it's more because the Soviet Union collapsed. The lack of competition made people in the West a bit too complacent.

[–]chances_are_ur_a_fag1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I wouldn't shit on soviet union on this one. the women there busted their asses off like you wouldn't believe compared to any western women.

source: I'm ex soviet

[–]BradPill1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

True. From all-female battalions in The Great War to many STEM-scientists afterwards (engineers etc.). However, those girls were pushed/forced into those studies if they showed the capacity (and based on what was needed, at the time - no lawyers or sociologists, but more engineers).

The problem in the West is the fact that studies were created for women to enroll - only to artificially increase the M/F ratio - not based on demand.... So now more girls (than boys) graduate - in studies the market doesn't need - or value as high as typical male studies (STEM)... SJW's now decry the fact that the market doesn't hire all those "highly educated women" (obviously b/c they are women!).
For SJW's the market sucks (it is the patriarchy, after all!), so the market needs to be changed! More laws, more money wasted, more companies going bust - or off-shoring, more jobs lost - guess who suffers the most from that?

[–]stuckinbathroom0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

A spectre is haunting America.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's hilarious how "equal opportunity" and "affirmative action" mean the same thing in the corporate world.

[–][deleted] 29 points30 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

They're not whining because of equal standards. They are whining because women are denied access to all that filthy Beta male lucre. What a strip club is to men, the workplace is for women.

[–]sir_wankalot_here12 points13 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

If you are a venture capitalist, I don't think you are beta.

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I'd say it's 60/40 alpha/beta. Some of those guys are brilliant dudes that all but fell into the money after having some intellectually brilliant thoughts. Many were the founders, but not CEOs of the startups that made them rich. Others worked their way up the VC industry ladder, they're alpha. CEOs are alpha. Founders of successful startups are usually brilliant, and they can go either way.

I worked pretty extensively with VCs at a startup prior to starting med school.

[–]1james-watson2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Always intrigued by people who pick the professions over entrepreneurship. Care to share your personal cost-benefit analysis? Was it passion for the field or just a better personal fit?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

In my field, getting an MD gives you both better job security and more opportunities for entrepreneurial activities. I wasn't the founder of my company, and I could only rise so high with a bachelors. In this field, having an MD both serves as a source of inspiration for new ideas and simply opens doors for you. Even if I never practice, if I go into entrepreneurship it'll be 4 years well spent. Don't think I'm going into medicine to become the family doctor who sets up an office next to the Foot Locker in white suburbia. I intend to practice in an academic setting where I have time set aside for research or non-clinical activities. Pharma and biotech have been increasingly drawing from academia, and I intend to take advantage of that in my career. He's not a medical doctor, but Robert Langer (most cited engineer in history and pioneer of academic entrepreneurship) comes to mind when I think about what I'd like to do with my career. I'd just be doing the medical equivalent, whereas he is involved in basic science research.

[–]southernmost0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Don't VC firms have a number of super mathletes doing quantitative analysis to get the best grasp of the risks and benefits of the projects asking for money? They're not the bosses, don't get much attention, but the work they do is difficult and they are usually well paid.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm talking partners, but yeah. Some of those guys can eventually become partners as well if they show they have the right intuition and pay their dues.

[–]BrunoOh2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Not necessarily. I've seen men who were Alpha when it came to handling their businesses and other men, but who also were complete betas when it came to managing their fat wives.

[–]Swoledinger12 points13 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

VC is all about gett'n dat money.

It's kind of humorous that anyone would entertain the thought that women are not employed more in VC because they are women. Follow it to its logical conclusion.

  1. They hire (and exploit) whom ever will net them the greatest profit.

  2. They only hire men because a. They would rather punish women than make more money? Nope. Whom ever would generate the most profit is who they will hire. b. They know they exploit their workers, so they protect women from the exploitation by not hiring them. Really?

Ultimately we are all lazy assholes. We gravitate towards optimization. I hire the candidate based on how easy they are going to make my job. That's it.

[–]BradPill1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

That 30% wage-gap (as used by the femi-nazi's) doesn't make sense... If a company could hire people that delivered the same for 30% less, they would fire all execs that same day. But the law doesn't even allow such a blatant gap, so why are those companies not sued into oblivion? Labor-laws usually being pro-employee and anti-employer? Plus, why do they still find women prepared to work under such unjust conditons- when only 1 complaint would solve the issue?
SJW's just hate the market - supply & demand is not what they accept, so they make it their cause to skew it - at their own detriment, as they only achieve Pyrrhic victories...

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Well the 30% wage gap is used by misrepresenting the truth. The truth is when you compare the average income of ALL MEN to the average income of ALL WOMEN it turns out to be true.

However, when you account for job title, description and responsibilities as well as hours worked and the like the wage gap almost disappears because women tend to work safe low paying jobs like retail or food service and tend towards part time work as opposed to full time work. Whereas men are more prone to working higher risk jobs (like mining, logging, production), work full time and take overtime hours.

Unfortunately there are no $30/hr paying jobs in retail or fast food sector.

[–]BradPill1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Thx. I never looked into it, but makes sense. Esp. if you include Wall Street bankers and lawyers with their absurd bonuses (vs. hordes of low paying jobs for women, like cleaning or fast food servers) - they completely skew the curve, as they are mainly male (which is totally 'unfair', of course :))

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link


As is often pointed out around here. If women were actually paid 30% less for the same work as men then businesses would have fired all the men and hired all women workforces because that would cut their labor costs by 30%.

Also the other example I like to point out is if a man and a woman are both being paid the same (say minimum wage like $10/hr) to unload trucks and the guy unloads 12 trucks a day and the woman unloads 10 trucks a day then who is getting paid less for equal work? The guy because he's doing more work in the same amount of time.

[–]BradPill0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Correct. But how long, realistically, would that 'imbalance' remain (other than Aff. Action)? Obviously the company wants to replace the woman as they can increase productivity with 20% for the same money.

I mentioned this in another thread: in professional tennis, women get the same prize-money in tournaments (Grand Slam) - however, the play best of 3, vs. men best of 5 - so, on paper a guy ends up working 66% more than a woman (in sets, not in games). So, who's got the better deal?

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

What you haven't realized the SJW truth? You can only have imbalance if you are a woman, gay, disabled or have a different color of skin other than white.

I've actually seen a SJW say 'only whites can be racist'... which is funny because some of the most racist fucks I've seen out there are asians and blacks.

[–]BradPill0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

SJW's just hate the market

(in my previous comment) - which is why they actively promote imbalance...

Yeah... The white self-hatred knows no limits - actually, it knows nothing when it comes to the big bad world out there.... All races are racist. In South Africa, racism is instituted in the law ("Black Economic Empowerment"). An Indian friend told me there are no bigger racists than her family (which is why she couldn't/didn't dare/want to introduce me to them).

Globally, whites are a minority - guess we should start whining a bit louder just because of that fact.

[–]TRP VanguardCyralea13 points14 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

The more an industry trends towards meritocracy, the fewer women you will see. That's not an accident. It's living evidence of male superiority in task completion and problem solving.

There's a reason why the tech sector and VC is mostly men, the more women you introduce into the mix, the more likely you are to kill your business.

[–]Senior Contributorexit_sandman4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's living evidence of male superiority in task completion and problem solving.

It's even easier, and you can actually support your claim with freely and easily available numbers: women simply are less likely to be willing to work overtime and make sacrifices for their jobs. This isn't some biased survey from the patriarchy, but a pretty well-known fact that got even published by more progressive researchers. Of course the progressives give it the spin that women are more down-to-earth and have a healthier work-life-balance and what not, but at the end of the day it comes down to women being less likely to work 60 hour weeks. Which in turn means that any pool of applicants for a work-intensive high potential job, men will outnumber women by default even if skill is evenly distributed (but if you're working in a field where you'll find fewer women anyway, this pool shrinks even further).

I brought this fact up at PPD yet for some weird reason most of the otherwise very vocal bluepillers weren't really willing to engage in that debate (except one who generally absolutely takes the cake when it comes to being in denial about pretty much everything). Honni soit qui mal y pense.

[–]2alisonstone4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Fields that require their workers to work really hard (60-80 hours) will not have many women in them in Westernized nations. Women have to sacrifice far more because prime fertile years would be spent in the office. A guy can work 100 hour weeks as a banker for 10 years after college and quit and he can be a 32-33 year old millionaire with an elite resume. He is at prime age and would be swarmed by young women. A woman doing the same thing would be rich, but she would have hit the wall and her eggs are running out of time. Odds are high she will never marry or have kids. If the woman can work in a different career (40 hrs/week) and still make a decent living, why wouldn't she? It's very rational for a person to prioritize breeding when they have enough resources.

Ironically, one way to increase women in fields like STEM is to take away their other options. STEM is filled with women in Saudi Arabia and Iran (places where women have very limited rights). The men make their money working in oil. Ostracized groups with limited rights turn to the meritocratic fields. The Jews dominated STEM in the past. Asian Americans are doing it now in the U.S. STEM has historically been a place that is dominated by social outcasts, whether it is geeks/nerds or certain religious or racial groups (like Jews or Asians). If you are a member of a privileged group, you'll probably just use your social advantage/connections to succeed because it is far easier than competing on merit alone. You don't hear about Kennedys or Rockerfellers becoming proctologists. The kid may be extremely capable, but why dig through shit if you don't have to? If you are ostracized, have no family wealth or reputation, then you want a meritocratic system where you can work your way to the top. Women in westernized nations are not going to flood into STEM when they realize that they have to put in a lot of work and their quality of life doesn't get better for it.

[–]1cover200 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I challenge your assertion that the women are avoiding super hard working fields so as to get a man and have his kids.

In academia in the most desirable jobs (e.g. Ivy League tenured professor) one finds a fair percentage of professors from good families who were the nerdy boy. This is because (1) they really love the stuff to have gone into it when they had other options, but more importantly (2) their family connection is what gets them that extremely rare tenured job. It's not entirely meritocratic, less and less so as one goes up the greasy pole.

I said a "fair percentage" not a "fair number". The numbers are extremely small. How many tenured Ivy League jobs are there in any given field? And for each job, the turnover is about once in 30 years.

Also at this level, even in technical fields I'd have to say that women almost always are distinguished by their people skills, sometimes quite brutal skills of bullying their way around. The IQ distribution becomes more and more skewed as one gets farther out in the tails. So, for example, there has been exactly one outstanding female mathematician, ever. One. Uno. Her name was Emmy Noether. No other female, ever.

There are plenty of females who want to be investment bankers, and quite a few of them are. The typical job you're describing that demands long hours and people skills but only limited technical skills. But there are almost none who are inventors or otherwise technically creative. It is just not a female skill.

[–]1favours_of_the_moon8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

In other words, trying to bully and intimidate him.

[–]chances_are_ur_a_fag9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

as my old school step father, who owned a mortgage company, said once, "never hire broads if you want to get shit done".

after personally witnessing the uselessness of women in the corporate world after ten years, I'd say he's right

[–]Momo_dollar11 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Females can't even manage their own low level business. I'll give an example of high end independent escorts who advertise on a popular website. It shouldn't take much to figure out how to successfully market themselves, how to build credibility, and how to judge messages and the authenticity of messages from potential clients. Basically clients who also have a profile can send messages, and if they book through the system then each can leave feedback. So naturally a girl should strive to increase her feedback, and pay good attention to messages from guys who have given and received lots of positive feedback. Yet most do not understand this and choose the easy option of ignoring their messages and only answering their phone. This then leads to lots of time wasters etc

Anyways I sometimes do stuff on the side involving Photoshop etc and it led me to that world from which I discovered opportunities.

So one day I contact a girl from a posh part of town and pitch her my service etc and offer to rewrite and design her profile, I explain the benefits and she agrees. I do the job, get paid and she mentions her friend needs the same done so I do it. Now I'm meeting them in their lovely apartment. I explain that they should strive to answer messages and getting booking through the system to increase feedback, but damn as busy girls they don't have time but for x amount a week I can check and reply 2 times a day. They both agree. After week one they are both happy AF and even pay me extra, I'm going there the queen b is even making me home cooking etc, next 3 time are the same they pay me extra each time.

One day I'm checking their messages and I realise that queen b has replied to messages that I've already replied to on her profile. 1) This will confuse the guys and most guys are already weary of girls they havnt met 2) Her way of replying was just shit and rude, stunk of attitude. So I realised what was happening, queen b was starting to think that she could do what I do better than her. I sent her a text and just said look if you're gonna be messaging people Ive messaged then its best that I stop. She agreed. Anyways I still had the agreement with her friend, and Queen B still paid me for other technical things like removing logos and uploading photos etc. Then came the test of who was best. One guy from abroad messaged both her and her friend for an overnight in a month time. The guy had great feedback from several European cities. I knew what the guy was doing, and he had probably messaged many other girls in that area. Queen B's reply received no further communication, my reply on behalf of queen b's friend led to several messages, and a booking confirmation a few days later.

Within 2 weeks of queen b replying to her own messages, she starts to complain that she isn't getting customers. I mention 1) shes in a business where repeat custom should be 90% of her trade 2) Maybe its her way of replying puts people off. She says NO, ITS THE PROFILE YOU WROTE MUST BE SOMETHING WRONG WITH IT, NOT SEDUCTIVE/SEXUAL ENOUGH. I point out that for several weeks it was good and she was giving me bonuses and only change has been in who is responding. She calms down with "maybe just a bad week". So before leaving I confirm with her friend if business is good for her and she is happy.

Over the coming weeks queen b complains more and more but won't accept the obvious. She even blams me for not emphasizing something on her profile, when I say but you read the profile and signed off on it she says "no I didn't look I just trusted you because I thought you knew what you were doing" , I mention that at least her friend is getting enough bookings to pay their rent. Over the next week she asks me to make several changes to her profile. I see her on the Sunday, she starts going on about a bf, and even accuses me of wanting her. I firmly tell she is one of several clients and that's it.

Next day she messages and says she wants her profile exactly as it was before I came and has the code can I do it. I agree, she sends me the code and its the first profile that I did for her. So I text her back and tell her bitch you're crazy or senile, but I'm done with you.

Even in the profession that they have worked in longest and are best they still lack the business/marketing skills to maximize their potential. They just lack a certain ability, I would say its the acceptance to know when someone is better at something than you are, to often they will let pride hinder rationality. BTW queen b was for the most part, quite intelligent, had worked a decent job abroad.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Oddly, women tend to exit a oppossite ends of the spectrum with little in-between. You either get incredibly competent and able women, or completely useless women. Rarely are there few in betweens. The women who are good, tend to keep pace with if not outpace men (but in far fewer numbers).

I do capital investment pitches at least once a month. I'm currently working with five different tech startups. Only one of them has a single female founder in the group. Non-tech startups, clothing and shoe startups rather, have tons of women and I've worked with them. Honestly I prefer creating blue collar businesses as those are easy to plug into and work with but tech startups can have major returns.

Tech startups at least pretend to be trying something new (i've turned down working with clones of Yelp), the clothing and shoe startups are way out of their league and way too hopeful (watched way too many episodes of "How To Make It In America"). Few startup folks have any real clue about business, marketing, or sales.

So it's hard for a business to invest in people with no proven track record of success, male or female for that matter. So they have every reason to maintain high standards to maximize their returns on investment. Capitalism is all about meritocracy, not feeding feelings with bullshit. Succeed or die.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2023. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter