Reader J.M. points out that feminist pundits have been largely silent on the ousting of Patricia Dunn as Chairwoman of Hewlett Packard following this scandal. (HP’s general counsel, Ann Baskins, is also taking major heat for approving the surveillance.)
Just a year ago, the organized feminist movement threw a fit when Carly Fiorina was ousted as CEO. HP was performing badly under her tenure but that didn’t stop people from complaining that her removal was unfair and a setback for women.
J.M. comments:
“No doubt, it’s only a matter of days before feminist pundits begin the hand-wringing about how unfair and troubling this is for the women’s movement or some such – the fact that three top women execs are enduring such scrutiny and consequence. But here’s a better question: what if it doesn’t say anything at all? What if it just means that men and women can both be good or bad business leaders, regardless of their gender? HP has had three women that are top executives – so what? I doubt anyone could cite a single instance of any shareholder, analyst or Wall Street leader who looked askance at that in any way whatsoever.”
Surely, J.M.’s assertion that men and women can both be good or bad business leaders, regardless of gender is commonsensical. But is that why feminist pundits have been silent? I’m not willing to give them that much credit. Thoughts?