I am sure readers will be as shocked as I am by the astonishing news coming out of Colorado:
A state health initiative to reduce teen birth rates by providing more than 30,000 contraceptive devices at low or no cost has led to a 40 percent drop in five years, [Colorado] Gov. John Hickenlooper said Thursday.
I. Am. Stunned. Next thing you know, some crackpot will be claiming contraception actually saves taxpayers money!
Unintended pregnancy burdens Colorado’s health and economy, costing Colorado more than $160 million annually in Medicaid expenditures. Nationally, for every public dollar spent on family planning services, $3.74 is saved in Medicaid costs for pregnancy-related services and newborn care.
Huh. Well then, allow me just suggest that we could easily fix this “problem” by simply eliminating Medicaid! It’s about time these coddled newborns started pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps, is it not? It’s called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, people. Look it up.
Female CEOs at the country’s biggest companies oversee financial results, on average, that beat the stock market, according to Fortune Magazine’s analysis of data from Factset Research Systems.
Fortune 1000 companies with a woman in the top role saw an average return of 103.4 percent over the women’s tenures, compared to an average 69.5 percent return for the S&P 500 stock index over the same periods.
The companies with female CEOs also seem to generate an outsized amount of revenue compared to others.
According to my ladymath, 103.4% is, like, MORE than 69.5%!
Other studies have found that companies run by women outperform others. Hedge funds run by women had a 6 percent return between 2007 and 2013, beating both a global hedge fund index at the stock market.
The article states that “others” have “hinted” at the reason(s) for the superior performance of women CEOs and board members. One hypothesis is that women are “more likely to be cooperative in decision-making and to consider the rights of others, which leads to better company performance.” Another posits that women board members “tend to keep companies from paying more for acquiring other companies and reduce the number of acquisitions overall.” That all sounds pretty
gender essentialist speculative to me. I personally think it’s because of the magical power of their vaginas, which as we all know work in mysterious ways to prevent rape, rapist baybeez and Lard only knows what else.
But it’s not exactly all good news for the ladybosses. Nope. For one thing, less than five percent of Fortune 500 companies have a female CEO. For another:
despite their likelihood to produce better results, female executives are paid less than male ones. Median pay for the 11 highest-paid female CEOs is $1.6 million less than median pay for the top-paid men. Last year, female CEOs made less than 80 percent of what male ones made.
Of course we can chalk up the entirely mythical gender pay gap to differences in the “life choices” of men and women, such as “women tending to leave the workforce when they have children.” Come on, people: it may not be politically correct to say so, but it is simply a demonstrable fact that women are vastly overrepresented in the number of people who give birth to children. HELLO?!
…Overall, the more likely a given respondent believed women were economically dependent on men, the more likely they were to view female promiscuity as immoral. These were modest to medium effects, but they were statistically significant, even controlling for factors like religiosity and political conservatism.
In other words, the more dependent on men women are, the higher the reproductive stakes: If you get pregnant and can’t make a strong case that a given man was the father, you (and your child) could be in serious trouble.
This is a pretty old-school way of looking at things, of course, but that’s the point: Not all aspects of human culture are caught up to modern life.
You don’t say.