It may be that those companies with more female board members are "more in touch with their customer base," but I suspect that the explanation is simpler: when a company has more women on its board (and in other positions of authority) this is a sign that it's less discriminatory in general, and more concerned about ability than about non-merit factors such as sex. Giving women a fair shot doubles the available talent pool, so naturally the company will end up with more good people.

That was supposed to be "cause and effect" above, of course, although I suppose it works as is too ...

Correlation is not causation, not even in Feminist World.

Why do you do this to yourself Tracy? Have you decided you never want a career in journalism, or are you auditioning for FOX?

Can you cite me the line where Clark-Flory claims causation? Better yet, can you give definitions of "correlation" and "causation" that make any sense at all? Because as a biostatistician, I'm betting that I have a better grasp of those terms than you do, and your letter leads me to conclude with near-certainty that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Is guilty of some crime.

Can we get a grand jury to investigate them, please?

If anyone can petition for a grand jury to investigate any organization that they don't like because they "suspect" - without evidence or any statement of what specifically the person "suspects" the organization is guilty of - every organization in this country would be under the investigation of a grand jury.

First the rightwing anti-choice organizations create controversy around Planned Parenthood--and then they demand a grand jury investigation because they say there's too much controversy around Planned Parenthood. THEY are the ones deliberately stirring up all the so-called controversy!

Where does she make the claim? Are you for real?

Gender equality, it's good for business. ... A new study, ... suggests that firms with more female board members perform better.

Is she saying that if you have good sales or good profits, that's good for gender equality

Or does she say it is the other way around?

Gender Equality.... It is good for business.

If Gender Equality Then Business Good.

P => Q.

But correlation is not causation as you claim to know.

(perhaps businesses that have excellent sales can afford the inevitable drag of having a bunch of know nothing, screeching harpy feminists on board.)

Jebus, are your conclusions at work this suspect, or as subject to a politically correct agenda?

Oh gosh Dvorkin, I bow to your general knowledge of biostatistics, because no one else in the world has ever had a simple course in statistics, not the doctors, engineers, lawyers, or even the hair dresses.

"firms with more female board members perform better."

As do kids with both parents remaining equally involved in their lives post-divorce. Yet feminist groups fight to keep men off familial "boards" post-divorce, relegating dad to fired former employee or bill-paying visiting secretary. Mom remains boss in the corner office.

Again we see the selfish black heart of feminizm: It seeks full, equal, government-enforced access to all things historically male for women while keeping men from traditional female turfs. Their modern woman is both emotional and economical: fully human. Their modern man remains the clueless, ruthless, uncaring, world-wrecking, dangerous, one-dimensional buffoon/brute they insist he always was (and will be).

Such compassionate ideology fills many KKK boards.

> "his two wives have spent the past five years in culturally commanded mourning."

Any benefits conferred during that period on the mourning wives? Are they, for example, given meals, lodging, etc. by the community? How could they live, after all, if their "men" couldn't provide food and the women were confined to huts?

I'm not saying they don't suffer. We just don't know. Feminists tend to cherry-pick cultural data to prove men are evil. For example, Tracy does not say that in Swazi, "a king is king through his mother". Nor that sangomas (diviners) are usually females communicating with spirits to solve problems. Or that males must give dowries to brides' families.

Feminists often tell half truths to show how long-suffering good women are and how heinous no-good men are. The fuller story takes the wind out of their sexist sails. For example, here's the description of an event in another "oppressive, patriarchal" culture:

“..the women danced naked and sang their way through the village, bellowing and gesticulating obscenities as they went. Men hurriedly removed themselves from their path, for fear of being caught, unceremoniously stripped of their clothing, and ‘played with’ by the unruly mob.”

Luckily (and too rarely!) the witness learned something from facts and subsequently curbed enthusiasm for male-bashing:

"I demonstrate how Ihanzu women's rites are not about rebellion but gender complementarity, played out by women dancers embodying both genders simultaneously. Above all, this case compels us to rethink, fundamentally, `rituals of rebellion' and `patriarchy'."

Would that more moonbat fembot "scholars" did the same.

" Harvard student Sophie Currier, 33, has won her fight to have extra time during her upcoming nine-hour medical licensing exam to pump breast milk for her 5-month-old daughter."

Where's the father? What can't he care for the child using previously-expressed milk?

Will the pumping be done in private where, say, notes cribbed (!) on a diaper could be vetted during the exam? Will a proctor make sure Mommy Dearest doesn't cheat during the pumpathon?

Harvard helped another neo-mom years ago, giving her all sorts of perks (like letting her go to parties with baby left behind in the dorm) while offering no help to the father...a guy living in California who she'd boned-and-disowned during the previous summer. Of course, she still demanded money from him.

I wonder how Harvard would have treated a blue-collar mom publicly seeking to share custody with a single-father Harvard prima donna.

Harvard now has female-only courses, deans, and a women's center. It will soon have a female president who, somehow, didn't equalize the number male Fellows at her prior, formerly all-female, institute. (And her we thought feminists were serious about making sure males and females were represented equally in academe!)

I suspect Crimson misandry will spread...along with pro-female sexism.