You Can’t See the Future From the Man-Cave … Greg Smith has left the Man Cave. His now-famous op-ed – in which he publicly excoriated Goldman Sachs for greed and capitalistic excess – has been dissected from every possible angle except one: It was a spot-on description of a company that could only have been run by men. And it was a cultural-blast reminder of what happens in male-dominated companies. What Greg described was an environment of boys gone wild – of testosterone on a tear. In this environment, the worst male instincts of unbridled competition and tribal bonding – the “us versus them” push-pull where clients were ridiculed and treated as competitors – became the rule. Masters of the Universe met Lord of the Flies. I see the inner workings of Goldman Sachs – and many other companies – as nothing less than corporate man caves. At the Daily Beast’s “Women In the World” Summit a few weeks ago, the journalist Niall Ferguson asked Christine Lagarde if more women in senior roles could have prevented the financial crisis. She responded, “Unlike Lehman Brothers, Lehman Sisters might have avoided default.” – Faith Popcorn, Huffington Post

One of the things about traveling to other countries is the blessed absence of formalized “Women’s Lib.” Many cultures, especially Islamic cultures, have quite different perspectives on how women and men relate.

Islamic cultures (especially Sunni cultures) tend to be protective of family and women. Of course, some fashionably interpret this as chauvinism keeping women from reaching their full potential.

But some of this is misunderstood in the West. For instance, one of the reasons that men (theologically speaking) can marry more than one wife is because women live longer than men and more men died in battle, etc. within the context of Islamic expansion.

Marrying more than one woman had little to do with sexual appetite and more to do with ensuring women could raise children in a family atmosphere and were supported.

That was then. Today, in the West, one could argue that women’s lib is at least in part a behavior modification element. The Marxist dialectics that sought to set men and women at each other’s throats were perhaps refined for certain purposes in Britain and the US during the 20^th century.

One of the ideas behind women’s lib may have been to make it OK for women to work throughout society because central banking economies demand enormous price inflation over time.

The idea of the powers-that-be may have been that Western populations with a two-family income would tolerate more price inflation.  Women’s lib and central banking occurred at approximately the same time throughout the 20^th century.

Ms. Popcorn is a big futurist, a famous prognosticator of trends – and she gets lots of mainstream media play. Too bad, I say. She seems to be writing on behalf of the interests of a rarified elite. And is furthering the war between the sexes such an admirable concept?

In this recent article, above, her statements delineating the cultural and physiological differences between men and women seem speculative indeed. She writes the following:

“Women run things differently. Female approaches, values, conceptions of victory, and need for validation, do not reflect those of men. And research has shown that women suffer less from over-confidence; meanwhile, arrogance is the cause of many corporate debacles …

“With … unstoppable power and influence, it’s clear that women are going to create the future. But men continue to resist, and by pushing back on the tide of history, they are missing out economically, politically, and emotionally …

“Companies are talking to a target that no longer exists. As a result, they’re talking in a way that is no longer relevant … 40 percent of children are born to unwed mothers, many of them college educated …

“Women are essential to our global success, because they see things differently and think differently than men do. They are better at synthesizing multiple data points and thinking holistically. The areas of their brains devoted to long-term planning are better developed than the male brain. They are far better at getting teams to work together collaboratively, which is vital to the future of organizational structure.”

Whew. Here’s the bottom line: Why does she make the assumption that societies are automatically better when women are “working” in gigantic corporations?

The corporate structure of Western culture is increasingly seen as a false paradigm, even a dead end. Without the support of courts – force in fact – the modern corporation would not even exist.

Corporations are the creation of a kind of control matrix. Basically, it sees to many in this new ‘Net era that the modern corporation is an agent of global elite control.

By cultivating the “best and brightest” and preparing them through tests, extracurricular activities and college degrees to participate in the corporate world, global elites create a world that they can more fully control.

The goal is always one of world domination and the corporate agenda meshes well with a larger sociopolitical and economic control. Those in charge of what’s going on can be either men or women.

But, heck, what’s the diff? The system itself is increasingly reprehensible. It’s one based on central bank money stimulation that creates terrible booms and then grievous busts when millions and even billions are thrown out of work or haven’t the wherewithal to find sustenance.

Women are as apt to be co-opted by this system as men. It is a merciless system of consumerism (and non-agrarianism) that encourages people to enslave themselves to debt and to materialistic goods they do not need.

Instead of being independent of the state, the corporatist-authoritarian system supports obedience and non-thinking. People’s individuality and independence are stripped away from them. During the bust period of central banking economies, millions lose their lives to depression, poverty and hopelessness.

This is not a system to be encouraged, the one that Ms. Popcorn and others want to “perfect” by ensuring that more women have access to it.

The US and NATO for instance are now involved in about 5-10 covert wars. Do those in the vanguard of Western women’s lib want women to participate in the front lines of these wars? Seems so …

These wars use depleted uranium weapons and demand that women – as well as men – get dangerous vaccines that often undermine their health. At home, sickened by uranium poisoning and bad vaccines, women like men succumb to emotional sickness and suicide.

The path of women in the military is also one of sexual brutality and even rape. This is the world that Ms. Popcorn seems to want to introduce women to in the name of equality.

She writes (see above) “Unlike Lehman Brothers, Lehman Sisters might have avoided default.” But this is just the point. What is so swell about reinforcing the system as it is? What is positive about keeping a company like Lehman Brothers going?

Wall Street, like corporations themselves, would not exist without government coercion. It is virtually a government-created monopoly. It is a creature of central banking monopoly fiat money distribution.

Ms. Popcorn seems to believe that women bring special talents of conciliation and team play that will help in the boardroom as well as in government and perhaps the military.

She is proposing in other words that women will help perpetuate the influence and efficacy of Leviathan. What the heck is so admirable – or helpful – about that?

Is this really the progress that women want? Is this really to be the “new world” of liberated women? Does Ms. Popcorn speak for all enlightened, Western females?

Maybe she should she pipe down a little and give others a chance to respond …

{ 0 comments }