Mathbabe has a post titled When is smaller better in which she examines two articles, one in the Wall Street Journal and one in the New York Times on the subjects of women CEOs and CEO compensation respectively. In the article from the Wall Street Journal the author is bemoaning the fact that women owned business tend to remain smaller than male owned businesses (note that one would have to be exceedingly shallow to hold such a view and I would assume the author lives in New York, which is a magnet for the superficial, the glib, vain materialists and other schematics) In any case, the money quote is here:
But you know what? I’ve got a new way of looking at “irrational behavior.” Namely, assume it’s totally rational and figure out what assumptions you’ve got wrong. Let’s stop here and apply this approach. From the article:
“Women start businesses to be personally challenged and to integrate work and family, and they want to stay at a size where they personally can oversee all aspects of the business.”
Well that was kind of too easy. Turns out that right there, in the article, there’s a rational explanation for a so-called “irrational behavior.” Which is not to say that the writer respects that explanation, of course. Much of the rest of the article focuses how you can convince CEO women that they’re being idiots to think like that.
That kind of intellectual rigor is rarely found in members of Occupy Wall Street, and despite the infantile profanity makes for a good post. Read the whole thing.