Monday, December 10, 2018

Once again, Leftism is destructive: Wall Street execs too afraid to hire women in wake of #MeToo

Men on Wall Street are so spooked by the #MeToo movement they're avoiding women at all costs. Wall Street risks becoming more of a boy's club, rather than less of one

No more dinners with female colleagues. Don’t sit next to them on flights. Book hotel rooms on different floors. Avoid one-on-one meetings.

In fact, as a wealth adviser put it, just hiring a woman these days is “an unknown risk.” What if she took something he said the wrong way?

Across Wall Street, men are adopting controversial strategies for the #MeToo era and, in the process, making life even harder for women.

Call it the Pence Effect, after U.S. Vice President Mike Pence, who has said he avoids dining alone with any woman other than his wife. In finance, the overarching impact can be, in essence, gender segregation.

Interviews with more than 30 senior executives suggest many are spooked by #MeToo and struggling to cope. “It’s creating a sense of walking on eggshells,” said David Bahnsen, a former managing director at Morgan Stanley who’s now an independent adviser overseeing more than US$1.5 billion.

This is hardly a single-industry phenomenon, as men across the country check their behaviour at work, to protect themselves in the face of what they consider unreasonable political correctness — or to simply do the right thing.

The upshot is forceful on Wall Street, where women are scarce in the upper ranks. The industry has also long nurtured a culture that keeps harassment complaints out of the courts and public eye, and has so far avoided a mega-scandal like the one that has engulfed Harvey Weinstein.

Now, more than a year into the #MeToo movement — with its devastating revelations of harassment and abuse in Hollywood, Silicon Valley and beyond — Wall Street risks becoming more of a boy’s club, rather than less of one.

“Women are grasping for ideas on how to deal with it, because it is affecting our careers,” said Karen Elinski, president of the Financial Women’s Association and a senior vice president at Wells Fargo & Co. “It’s a real loss.”
There’s a danger, too, for companies that fail to squash the isolating backlash and don’t take steps to have top managers be open about the issue and make it safe for everyone to discuss it, said Stephen Zweig, an employment attorney with FordHarrison.

“If men avoid working or traveling with women alone, or stop mentoring women for fear of being accused of sexual harassment,” he said, “those men are going to back out of a sexual harassment complaint and right into a sex discrimination complaint.”

While the new personal codes for dealing with #MeToo have only just begun to ripple, the shift is already palpable, according to the people interviewed, who declined to be named. They work for hedge funds, law firms, banks, private equity firms and investment-management firms.

For obvious reasons, few will talk openly about the issue. Privately, though, many of the men interviewed acknowledged they’re channeling Pence, saying how uneasy they are about being alone with female colleagues, particularly youthful or attractive ones, fearful of the rumour mill or of, as one put it, the potential liability.

A manager in infrastructure investing said he won’t meet with female employees in rooms without windows anymore; he also keeps his distance in elevators. A late-40-something in private equity said he has a new rule, established on the advice of his wife, an attorney: no business dinner with a woman 35 or younger.

The changes can be subtle but insidious, with a woman, say, excluded from casual after-work drinks, leaving male colleagues to bond, or having what should be a private meeting with a boss with the door left wide open.

On Wall Street as elsewhere, reactions to #MeToo can smack of paranoia, particularly given the industry’s history of protecting its biggest revenue generators.

“Some men have voiced concerns to me that a false accusation is what they fear,” said Zweig, the lawyer. “These men fear what they cannot control.”

There are as many or more men who are responding in quite different ways. One, an investment adviser who manages about 100 employees, said he briefly reconsidered having one-on-one meetings with junior women. He thought about leaving his office door open, or inviting a third person into the room.

Finally, he landed on the solution: “Just try not to be an asshole.”

That’s pretty much the bottom line, said Ron Biscardi, chief executive officer of Context Capital Partners. “It’s really not that hard.”
In January, as #MeToo was gathering momentum, Biscardi did away with the late-night, open-bar gathering he’d hosted for years in his penthouse suite during Context Capital’s annual conference at the Fontainebleau Miami Beach. “Given the fact that women are in the minority at our events, we want to make sure that the environment is always welcoming and comfortable. We felt that eliminating the after-party was necessary to remain consistent with that goal.”

In this charged environment, the question is how the response to #MeToo might actually end up hurting women’s progress. Given the male dominance in Wall Street’s top jobs, one of the most pressing consequences for women is the loss of male mentors who can help them climb the ladder.

“There aren’t enough women in senior positions to bring along the next generation all by themselves,” said Lisa Kaufman, chief executive officer of LaSalle Securities. “Advancement typically requires that someone at a senior level knows your work, gives you opportunities and is willing to champion you within the firm. It’s hard for a relationship like that to develop if the senior person is unwilling to spend one-on-one time with a more junior person.”

Men have to step up, she said, and “not let fear be a barrier.”


When Can Americans Be Arrested in Retaliation for What They Say?

It may be a prudent policy to always be polite to the police, but does that mean Americans must give up the right to be rude?

A question similar to this — transcending it, in fact — is now before the Supreme Court of the United States.

It started at an Alaskan event called "Arctic Man," where an individual engaged in two contentious conversations with two policemen. The second conversation ended with the policemen arresting the person, who, according to a petition filed in the Supreme Court by the attorney general of Alaska, "was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest."

At issue now is not that state's laws forbidding disorderly conduct and resisting arrest but a federal law that permits individuals to bring suit against government officials who use government power to deprive them of a constitutional right.

As quoted in the Alaska attorney general's petition, 42 U.S.C. 1983 says: "Any person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress."

No criminal case was brought against the man arrested at Arctic Man. "The prosecution later dismissed the case for budgetary reasons," said the attorney general's petition.

But the person arrested did not dismiss the case. He brought a suit against the arresting officers in federal court alleging, among other things, that he is the victim of a "retaliatory arrest" because of his conversations with them.

The district court ruled that if there was probable cause against the individual, he could not bring suit for a retaliatory arrest.

"The court ruled," said the attorney general's petition, "that the existence of probable cause also barred respondent's First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim, noting that this Court 'has never recognized a First Amendment right to be free from a retaliatory arrest that is supported by probable cause.'"

The man appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which disagreed with the district court on this point. It held, according to the attorney general, "that the existence of probable cause for an arrest does not bar a plaintiff's claim that the arrest was retaliatory in violation of the First Amendment."

The police officers appealed to the Supreme Court.

"To maintain a damages claim for retaliatory arrest in violation of the First Amendment, a plaintiff must plead and prove the absence of probable cause for the arrest," the attorney general of Alaska argued to the Supreme Court on their behalf.

In other words, unless an American can prove that there was no probable cause for the police to arrest him for any crime whatsoever, the police can arrest him in retaliation for exercising his right to free speech.

The Rutherford Institute submitted a brief to the court rejecting the rule that Alaska wants.

"A probable-cause shield that makes it easier for police officers to arrest speakers in retaliation for speech that offends or upsets an officer would not only squash expressive disorder at the cost of individual freedom, but also silence debate on controversial issues of public concern," Rutherford said.

"That approach," it said, "would result in less protection for precisely the type of speech that needs protection most."

"Many Americans, though they may not know or intend it, break the law daily by committing crimes that go largely unrecognized, such as jaywalking, exceeding the speed limit, or failing to signal before making a turn," said Rutherford.

"Although these types of crimes may not often result in arrest, the fact remains that an officer possesses the authority to arrest someone whenever probable cause exists to believe that person committed any crime," said Rutherford. "That means that in almost any circumstance in which a person might publicly exercise First Amendment rights — and potentially experience retaliation for that speech in the form of an arrest — the arresting officer could likely identify some violation of the law, however trivial, and claim probable cause existed to justify the arrest."

"And," Rutherford concluded, "even if the arrest were motivated by the officer's animus toward the speaker and would not otherwise have occurred, the existence of probable cause would defeat the First Amendment claim outright under petitioners' proposed test."

Fifty years ago, who would have imagined that an American president (Barack Obama) would stand behind a regulation requiring Catholic nuns to provide insurance for abortifacients — or else pay ruinous fines? Who would have imagined that a president would take those nuns all the way to the Supreme Court, seeking the power to restrict their free exercise of religion by forcing them to act against the right to life?

Who doubts now that future American politicians could be just as aggressive in restricting freedom of speech?


Catholics to Consecrate California to Virgin Mary to 'Defeat Culture of Death, Abortion, Natural Disasters'

On Dec. 8, Catholics in the Golden State will hold public ceremonies at churches throughout the state, and openly along the coastline, to consecrate California to the Blessed Virgin Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, and to pray to God to spare California from the "just punishment" it deserves "from killing our unborn, sick, elderly, unwanted and for the violence, sex abuse, drugs, alcoholism, and sex trafficking we commit to others."

The public prayers will also call on God to protect California "from natural disasters and war" and defeat "the whole Culture of Death." Although it is a Catholic event, everyone is welcome to participate.

The event, organized by BVM Blue Mantle (, is supported by San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, Santa Rosa Bishop Robert Vasa, the Knights of Columbus, Jackie Francis, Jesse Romero, Fr. Chad Ripperger, Catholic Answers, Lila Rose, and numerous other Catholic leaders and organizations. 

The event starts at 12:00 p.m. on Saturday, Dec. 8. People are invited to gather at the parishes participating or to stand "near the California coastline, parallel to the San Andreas Fault." At 12:30 p.m., people will walk to a designated location by an event coordinator and then at 1:00 p.m. people will pray the Rosary, then the Prayer of Consecration, and then the Closing Prayer.

The Prayer of Consecration is:  “Most Holy Trinity: Our Father in Heaven, who chose Mary as the fairest of your daughters; Holy Spirit, who chose Mary as your spouse; God the Son, who chose Mary as your mother; in union with Mary, we adore your majesty and acknowledge your supreme, eternal dominion and authority.

"Most Holy Trinity, we put the United States of American, and particularly, the State of California, into the hands of Mary Immaculate in order that she may present the country and our State to You. Through her we wish to thank you for the great resources of this land and for the freedom, which has been its heritage. Through the intercession of Mary, have mercy on the Catholic Church in America. Grant us peace.

"Have mercy on our president and on all the officers of our government. Grant us a fruitful economy born of justice and charity. Have mercy on the capital and on industry and labor. Protect the family life of the nation. Guard the innocence of our children. Grant the precious gift of many religious vocations. Through the intercession of our Mother, have mercy on the sick, the poor, the tempted, sinners – on all who are in need.

"Mary, Immaculate Virgin, our Mother, Patroness of our land, we praise you and honor you and give our country and ourselves to your Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. O Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, pierced by the sword of sorrow prophesized by Simeon, save us from degeneration, disaster and war. Protect us from all harm. O Advocate, pray for us, that acting always according to your will and the Will of your Divine Son, we may live and die pleasing to God. Amen.”

The ceremony will also include a Prayer of Offering that partly states, "In this way we hope to be spared the just punishment for our souls that our State deserves from killing our unborn, sick, elderly, unwanted and for the violence, sex abuse, drugs, alcoholism, and sex trafficking we commit to others.

"Please, Blessed Mother, protect our State from natural disasters and war. Intercede to defeat and claim victory over the whole Culture of Death, worldliness, and help us to bring back God and the concept of family in our life, so we learn to live God’s commandments and to love our Neighbor in our everyday life.

"Please touch the minds and hearts of those on the Supreme Court, as well as all the people of this land; that all may see what horror has been done to our young. Please, Advocate of God’s Children, intercede that our message may spread far and wide, so that all may work for the protection of the unborn, elderly, sick and unwanted.

"Please petition your Divine Son on our behalf to protect our nation from all harm and to move us to reform those ways which are contrary to His law so that His glory may be greatly manifested here on earth. Amen."


Australia: Parents are being advised to discourage their daughters from playing with dolls and think twice about giving sons toy trucks

I doubt that this theorist has had any sons.  I know a mother who had three fine sons close together.  She always gave them boy's toys to play with.  One day she decided that they might like a doll.  The boys took an immediate interest in the doll.  They pulled its eyes out and its legs off and threw it into a corner to be ignored thereafter.  One wonders how the 'feminist academic' below would deal with that

Australian parents are being urged to refrain from encouraging their daughters to play with dolls if they want them to succeed later in life.

Curtin University 'feminist academic' Dr Marilyn Metta said toy choices in early childhood would affect girls' future career prospects.

'Limiting girls to traditional girl toys has a direct impact on the under-representation of women in science and technology and engineering,' she told SBS program Is Australia Sexist?

Dr Metta, who teaches sociology and anthropology to students in Perth, also suggested parents steer boys away from toy trucks and towards dolls to improve their social prospects as adults.

'Boys have a lot to gain from playing and being exposed to traditionally girls' toys,' she said.

'It gives them the opportunity to develop human skills like relational skills, interacting with people, developing empathy.

'Those skill that are very, very crucial for healthy, emotional development.'

Traditional boys' toys helped develop spatial awareness while dolls were regarded as items that helped develop nurturing skills.

Dr Metta said gender stereotypes based on toy choices for children had the effect of 'limiting of the skills that they develop'.

As part of another experiment on gender roles, SBS dressed boys in girls' clothes and girls in boys' outfits to see what toys adult volunteers would give them to play with.

The male volunteers gave a toy dinosaur and a train to girl dressed as a boy while a female volunteer gave a toy tea set to a boy dressed as a girl.

Dr Metta describes herself as a 'feminist academic in anthropology and sociology' and on her Curtin University staff profile website.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


1 comment:

C. S. P. Schofield said...

Regarding the matter of women on Wall Street;

"Men have to step up, she said, and “not let fear be a barrier.”"

Why? What's in it for them, other than the risk of having their lives destroyed by some raving nut, or conniving bitch? Maybe they SHOULD. Good Christian people SHOULD always turnt he other cheek, which is one reason I'm an agnostic. But All Street isn't Sunday School. Wall Street os the real world, and in the real world, if you make it a possible career-ending matter to be close to you, no one will get close to you. Period, dot.

Wake up and smell the coffee, ladies. This is the future your Feminist so-called allies are making for you. A future where all of their worst predictions about Male behavior come true, BECAUSE THEY MADE THEM COME TRUE.