Corporations

Bosses Who Donate to Republicans Are Less Likely to Promote Female Staff

A new study of U.S. law firms looks at how managers' personal political views affect gender roles at work.

|

TownePost Network/Flickr

Are Republican-led companies less friendly to female employees? A look at large corporate law firms in the U.S. says yes. 

For the study, business professors Seth Carnahan (University of Michigan) and Brad Greenwood (Temple University) examined individual political donations from partners at America's 200 largest law firms between 2007-2012, then weighed these against outcomes for female associates at the firm. The goal was to determine how much managers' personal political ideologies correspond to levels of organizational gender parity. 

"In general, women are much less likely to be promoted, and much more likely to leave their firms," said Carnahan, an assistant professor of strategy at Michigan's Ross School of Business. "We found that this gender gap gets smaller when male bosses are more liberal, but it gets larger when male bosses are more conservative."  

"Researchers have long argued that a manager's political ideology, situated on a liberal-conservative continuum and defined as a 'set of beliefs about the proper order of society and how it can be achieved,' can influence organizational outcomes such as investments in corporate social responsibility initiatives, targeting by LGBT activists, and allocation of resources among business units," the authors note in their paper. "If these preferences influence managerial decision-making, a manager's political ideology may drive considered choices or unconscious biases that have an important influence" on treatment and promotion of female employees. 

As one way to test this, Carnahan and Greenwood explored merger-and-acquisition deals which U.S. law firms were involved in from 2007 through 2012—a sample that included 5,702 deals involving 16,860 partners and 18,215 associates at US law firms. Even after controlling for things such as an associate's number of years with a firm, their law-school ranking, shared law-school ties between associates and partners, and law-firm location, they found a "negative interaction between donations to Republicans and the selection of female associates" to serve with partners on client teams.

Compared to politically moderate partners, conservative male partners were 2.7 percent less likely than other partners to choose female associates for their deal teams. Liberal male partners were 0.8 percent more likely than moderates to choose a female associate for their teams.

The authors also pinpointed associates at America's top 200 law firms in 2006, and followed them until they received a promotion to partner or exited the company. Women made up about 45 percent of all associates. With or without controls factored in, Republican leadership in a practice area corresponded negatively to female promotion rates in that area and positively with turnover rates. 

These conservative law-firm heads "are probably not consciously discriminating against women," Carnahan said in a statement, "but their beliefs could influence their willingness to invest in female subordinates. And this could happen on both sides of the spectrum. You could have conservative managers who don't promote women enough and you can have liberal managers who promote women more than they otherwise should."

"It is important to emphasize that we don't know the right level of diversity for each office, each organization," said Carnahan. "Our results should not be interpreted as 'anti-conservative' or 'pro-liberal.'" 

In the paper, Carnahan and Greenwood suggest that "the most valuable opportunity for future work is to examine whether ideologically driven gender role preferences affect firm performance." 

A rapidly growing body of research suggests that gender diversity in corporate ranks can be a boon for business performance. It's not necessarily a matter of women being superior managers, however, or there being some delicate, ideal gender divide within companies that makes things run more smoothly. As Carnahan and Greenwood note, both conservative managers who "under support" female staff and liberal managers who "over support" ideals of gender equality can be linked to less well-performing organizations or business units. The bottom line, they say, is that organizations are likely to pay for making hiring decisions based on "ascriptive preferences" rather than talent and skill. 

Advertisement

NEXT: Vermont Senate Approves Legal Pot as Governor Cheers

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Compared to politically moderate partners, conservative male partners were 2.7 percent less likely than other partners to choose female associates for their deal teams. Liberal male partners were 0.8 percent more likely than moderates to choose a female associate for their teams.

    Statistical noise

    1. Something must be done

      1. Well, bitches need more time to get back to the kitchen bake the menfolk a pie! Those pies don’t bake themselves you know.

    2. Exactly my reaction. What’s the margin of error on this study, anyway? And do they have any idea what being on a “client team” at a law firm means?

      In my experience, virtually nothing. People who aren’t on the team still do work for that client. People on the team might do very little, and just be there to show a spread of specialties or somesuch.

      And, naturally, this could just be the partners not going along with the sub rosa affirmative action that may make some of their female associates look better on paper (law school ranking, law school attended, etc.) than their male counterparts.

      1. Out of curiosity, what’s your experience with the split of male to female associates? How about higher up?

        I am in a medium sized accounting firm (100+ partners), we have around 60% female associates. In my group of 30+ we have 75% female associates. The partners and senior managers in my group are all men. It’s not that we fired all the female managers that are up for promotions – they are generally at a point in their lives where they decide to leave the industry because they expect to have more free time working for private companies than working as a CPA partner. Are the dynamics of a law firm similar? I’d expect it to be based on what I’ve seen.

        1. I am long out of the law firm world.

          What I see in the firms I hire is 50/50 mid to senior partners. My antitrust lawyers are women (one of the top dog anti-trust gurus, who is retiring, and her protege). My hospital ops outside counsel is a woman. My malpractice defense lawyers are maybe 60/40 women, perhaps because we have some “bad baby” cases that they are better with. ERISA, employment, and tax are men.

          1. Interesting.. seems like a much more even split in law then.

            1. Its a small sample, and now that I think about, doesn’t overlap with their small sample (M & A client teams) at all.

              M & A is one specialty among many in big firms. If you cherry pick specialties, there’s no telling what you could come up with in medicine.

              OMG! Women are under-represented among surgeons!

              OMG! Men are under-represented in OB/GYN!

              1. I would think that Big Law and certain specialties within it are both more time intensive and stressful, leading to significantly less work-life balance (one of the reasons I enjoy working in-house). Something tells me that runs smack into the same life choices many women make regarding careers outside of the legal field, regardless of the political persuasions of their bosses.

          2. I’d think you’d want women where you needed extra vigilence for the client’s interests and men where you were really concerned to come to an equitable agreement amongst parties. But I’m thinking about the typical characters of men and women generally. I’ve almost no XP with lawyer ladies. Back when I was dealing with lawyers day in day out, there weren’t any to speak of in those parts. It seemed like a lot of the really costly and aggressive criminal defense lawyers were blacks or Greeks, who otherwise made up about 0% of the population.

        2. Out of curiosity, what’s your experience with the split of male to female associates? How about higher up?

          I was coming to comment on just that. In my practice group, it’s about 60/40 male at the associate level (it’s IP, so you need an engineering/bio/Chem degree). At the partner level, it’s 90/10 male (give or take). I can tell you that it would be much closer to 60/40 if female associates stayed long enough to make partner. The firm would make sure it ended up that way.

        3. Women tend to leave public accounting when the babies come. Some try to swing it part time. The problem is, by the time the women go back full time, there is a dude that has been busting his ass NONSTOP and is now in line ahead of her for promotion. Most firms would love to have more female partners to be able to let their diversity flag fly.

        4. I know nothing about large accounting or law firms, but I can tell you in chain drug stores the ratio of male pharmacists to female pharmacists is about 1 to 3.

          Funny how that gets no attention from the ENBs of the world.

      2. A study of law firms that contribute to Republicans?
        Could you pick a smaller statistically significant group?

    3. I should have at least skimmed the comments before posting. My thoughts as well.

    4. “In general, women are much less likely to be promoted.” You didn’t know that “much” is an exact scientific descriptor?

    5. That was my immediate response as well. 3% difference on something this nebulous is probably well within the margin of error. And the fact that you were doing the study at all suggests that you had a conclusion in mind. How many degrees of freedom did the researchers have? Were they looking at 15 different attributes and picked this one out because it showed a positive result?

      On the surface of it this just reeks of junk science. That’s not a conclusion, just a supposition based on a lot of red flags waving around. I’d be willing to bet that more rigorous studies would show that this effect disappears as the methodology gets better.

      1. So you go to the paper and:

        We further theorize that conservative (liberal) managers will be less (more) likely to lead their firm’s diversity initiatives, relative to moderate managers. Using novel microdata from the legal services industry, we find support for the majority of our arguments.

        They just come out and say it right in the abstract. They had a political ax to grind, and they went cherry picking through a small pile of data looking for something to corroborate their idea.

        I have no knowledge of this journal, but I can tell you with absolute certainty that there is no way an article like this would be published in a hard science journal like Cell or Science or Nature. This is an opinion piece posing as science. Crap from the jump.

        1. MBH 98 was published in Nature. I wouldn’t be so sure about that.

        2. Science and Nature can be sensationalist. That tends to happen when a journal gets too popular.

      2. “3% difference on something this nebulous is probably well within the margin of error.”
        Oh come on, if this was published in a peer-reviewed journal, the p value was below an acceptable alpha.

        “Were they looking at 15 different attributes and picked this one out because it showed a positive result?”
        Bingo, you can’t take scientists at their word that the research process proceeded similarly to the narrative in their paper, e.g. that this hypothesis came before the result. Hell, they may have gone in looking for a pay gap among equally titled workers and not found it. Cherrypicking, and its analog publication bias, could very well be responsible for some or all of this result.

        Also this is an observational study and so by its vary nature is dubious.

        1. Very* Jesus I need a coffee…

    6. No one would seriously ask a question like this unless they were just looking to justify a predetermined conclusion.

    7. That’s because liberal males like to work with women so they can tell them what to wear and make them up and stuff.

    1. “the most valuable opportunity for future work is to examine whether ideologically driven gender role preferences affect firm performance.”

      Let me guess….

      1. Well if their performance bent over the bosses desk is up to par then advancement shouldn’t be a problem…

        *crawls back under rock*

  2. You could have conservative managers who don’t promote women enough and you can have liberal managers who promote women more than they otherwise should.”

    or vice-a-versa
    I see a diversity management position open for Goldilocks.

    Statistical noise

    Yup

    1. I don’t see how that can even remotely approximate to being true. There’s no fucking way there’s any validity to the claim that it’s possible somebody doesn’t promote workers of some sex or other enough, since there’s no way one can predict competency or mastery from sex in this kind of work, something made even more impossible by the fucked up nonsense that is often totally contrary that the sociologists pass off for descriptions of the character of men and women.

      1. WHAT?!!! Are you suggesting we judge people based on their competency at particular tasks?? Crazy talk.

  3. These conservative law-firm heads “are probably not consciously discriminating against women,” Carnahan said in a statement, “but their beliefs could influence their willingness to invest in female subordinates. And this could happen on both sides of the spectrum. You could have conservative managers who don’t promote women enough and you can have liberal managers who promote women more than they otherwise should.”

    “It is important to emphasize that we don’t know the right level of diversity for each office, each organization,” said Carnahan. “Our results should not be interpreted as ‘anti-conservative’ or ‘pro-liberal.'”

    So it’s probably safe to infer republicans hate women.

    1. “Grab its motherfucking leg”

    2. Yeah, God forbid we make the headline “Liberal Managers promote under-qualified women, because Diversity!” Or, “Liberal Managers prejudiced against men”.

      1. “Dog bites man” is not a headline.

        Progressives believe in government mandated and enforced sexism against men. Not news.

    3. “their beliefs could influence their willingness to invest in female subordinates”

      Fascinating. This study was money and time well spent.

      1. Yes, and their beliefs could also influence their willingness to invest in male subordinates, which could result in fewer men advancing in liberal firms.

    4. “are probably not consciously discriminating against women,”

      This sentence scares me. Thought crime and control and all that. ‘You may say you’re not racist but you don’t realize you are.’

      1. Unconscious bias certainly does exist. It sucks that we have to react this way to real phenomena because there really are people out there who want the Thought Police to take care of it.
        Unconscious biases are certainly something worth examining, but sadly, too many people immediately jump to “there oughta be a law”.

        1. You can make the claim there are unconscious biases, but you can’t identify and measure what most are which makes them pretty hard to examine. What ends up happening is the focus on those that *can* be somewhat identified then conclusions drawn and decisions made from this very small set.

      2. From that sentiment the entire “privilege” monstrosity was born.

        1. Zeb, it appears that you are being wistful. You should try, instead, to adopt the teaching of Diogenes of Sinope.

          Once we stop trying to fight our impulses, and instead recognize them and cater supply to them, do we have a truly equitable arrangement across all parties. Compromise is king, not control.

          1. Zeb, it appears that you are being wistful.

            Fair enough.

  4. Pretty low comment count so far today. I guess everyone is off voting for Trump.

    1. The more Reason continues its long, slow downward spiral into just another whiny-ass left liberal victimhood rag, the lower the comment count will continue to go. The market for that content is already super-saturated.

      1. Once the yokels get tired of complaining about it, yeah.

        1. I LOLed.

        2. Awww snap.

      2. just another whiny-ass left liberal victimhood rag

        Yeah. If that’s what you think, why the fuck are you still here?

        And where can I get the special edition of Reason that all the wingnut-o-tarians read?

        1. “Wingnut”? Rachael Maddow, is that you?

          1. Just trying to mix it up. “Yokel” gets old.

              1. I don’t think I’ve ever actually called anyone here “yokel”. I try to steer clear of that mess. Cosmo/yokel bullshit. I appreciate the diversity of views around here when people are willing to engage. But I have a hard time resisting calling out dickheads to rush to make ridiculous judgements based on a single blog post or comment.

                1. Yeah, some commentarians hate Reason so much I wonder why they post here, notwithstanding the trolls. Myself, I prefer to direct my frustration towards those particular members of the staff who write articles like “Easy Money policy from the Fed is grrrrreat for the economy” or “the libertarian case for Barack Obama” et cetera. I don’t indict the magazine or libertarianism as a whole for those atrocities.

          2. Yep, he’s another Beltway butt boy.

            1. Yeah, you got me pegged. My years of consistent comments are all a ruse. I am in fact Rachel Maddow. Ass.

              1. Ugh, I read that as “I am in fact Rachel Maddow’s Ass”…

                Gah!

                1. Yikes.

                  Goes with “butt boy”, I guess.

        2. Yeah. If that’s what you think, why the fuck are you still here?

          Because I was here before Reason went Progressitarian. Progressitarians will probably drive out libertarians in the end, but until then, I’ll be here to tell them to bite me.

      3. The comment count looks pretty high to me.

        The real turning point for our new Progressitarian masters will be when they decide to turn off comments to “no platform” yokeltarians.

    2. Watching everyone squabble about the arrangement of the deck chairs as the ship sinks is unfun. The abandoned bar with the unsupervised alcohol, now…

      1. Yep. Libertarianism has been routed, authoritarians are in ascendence. So Reason is writing stories now that might be acceptable to the new “libertarian” future.

        Merit, fuck that, lets judge people by what’s between their legs or the color of their skin.

        1. lets judge people by what’s between their legs

          Show-er or grow-er?

          1. “The water was cold! Shrinkage!!”

          1. The bottom line, they say, is that organizations are likely to pay for making hiring decisions based on “ascriptive preferences” rather than talent and skill.

            Just look at that egalitarian trash! Gary Becker is rolling over in his grave.

      2. Fuck, I just decided to come out as a Libertarian too, and now you’re all just going to jump ship? Do I smell bad?

        1. Yes, but we put up with Warty’s musk for years, so it’s more of a straw/camel situation.

          1. Must be a lot of broken camels somewhere.

          2. Musk is rather euphemistic. Sulfur-based neurotoxin is about right.

            1. I thought it was just a splash or two of Sex Panther?

              1. It’s a formidable scent…..stings the nostrils! In a good way.

                Brian, I’m going to be honest with you. That stuff smells like pure gasoline.

    3. Just voted in a mixed district which switches back and forth from Rep to Dem and back.

      Interesting the only signs I saw were for Trump.

  5. Right. I keep forgetting that the closer society comes to realizing progressive goals, the more insidious the tactics used by reactionaries to thwart perfection. And as far as “diversity” being a boon to innovation goes, I find this notion highly dubious. How “diverse” are Japanese firms? How “diverse” were the American firms that helped build the first shuttle to the moon? Exactly which “diverse” firms are currently innovative, and how does their diversity help achieve that?

    1. Look you, when NASA was not-at-all ‘diverse’, they sent multiple missions to the moon and back with technology that is now nearly half a century old. Now that NASA is more ‘diverse’, we can’t leave low-earth orbit with manned craft using modern technology. Wait, what was the question?

    2. How “diverse” were the American firms that helped build the first shuttle to the moon?

      Considering America never built a “shuttle” to the moon…

      Apollo used a capsule design, the shuttle was LEO only. At least get your basic terminology right.

      1. Shuttle: a form of transportation that travels regularly between two places.

        By the definition of the word, the Shuttle wasn’t really a shuttle either.

        But the Apollo space capsule did go back and forth between two places. Once per can, but still….

        1. By the definition of the word, the Shuttle wasn’t really a shuttle either.

          Touche. It especially failed on the “regularly” part of the definition. Unless one considers 4 times a year “regularly”.

      2. Forget it, he’s rolling.

    3. Diversity of thought, like Nash described, is certainly helpful. Collectivist “diversity” is however sort of the opposite of that, since diversity is measured by adherence to approved generalised categories. A bunch of individuals is never “diverse” in their thinking. Rather a set of stereotyped categories is “diverse”, rather the opposite of what the word means. If one were really interested in diversity for innovation’s sake, he’d draw in a gang of psychotics, retards, and shellshook veterans, and set them to work on a problem. But who’s doing that? For one thing, legal contingencies make the inevitable bloodbath unsupportable, and, another, there’s fucking minimum wage cockblocking the whole idea. I’ve a lot of XP with those sorts of “people”, and minimum wage musb one of the main obstruction to employment for them. After that, the stigmata of “schizophrenic” and “PTSD” (in veterans) tend to discourage employers even when minwage isn’t an issue. For whatever reason, PTSD doesn’t seem to have any impact on employment for police. Even turning a blind eye to race, one would probably end up with a disproportionate gang of coloured folk in it.

      1. Diversity is like climate change, a term used for a blank check for power no matter what happens and what you want to do.

    4. Well, diversity of viewpoint, experience, personality is probably a good thing for law firms and a lot of other kinds of organizations. Diversity of sex and race probably doesn’t hurt either. As long as it isn’t at the expense of hiring the best people for the jobs.

  6. Don’t confuse social science with actual science, regardless of how much they try to invoke statistical language.

    1. Fanatics
      In their attics
      Are learning mathematics
      Just for sociology
      Persuasion
      By equation
      They all feel it’s much more satisfactory
      They, in an ivory steeple
      Far away from all people
      They do research in sociology
      Guys
      Who wrote lies
      Now present them in disguise
      A cinch in sociology
      Attract
      Quite abstract
      Without one single fact
      Disblended sociology

    2. I guess it’s more correct to say that they invoke scientific language, statistics just being one (significant) part of it.

    3. I took stats for political science majors when I was in UG. That was the class that all the “overachiever” sociology students took, because it was more rigorous than the sociology version. It was considered the hardest class in the political science curriculum. It was a fucking joke. I also happened to take statistics for electrical engineers in the same semester, and we did more statistics in one day than in the entire political science stats class.

      Learning how to punch data into SPSS is not “learning statistics.” I’ve not taken social “science” seriously since I watched students who would eventually publish studies like this fail to understand what a bell curve is, and why it’s important.

      1. Bell curves are useful because it made Pavlov’s dogs salivate, right?

      2. I remember getting trouble in it for actually working out the numbers and what they meant. I was chastened, told that I was there to learn how to use SPSS, not how statistics actually work.

      3. Akk, and I’ve noticed they are generally adept at running the numbers through some statistics processor, but are total morons when it comes to interpretting the results.

    4. “Science” is science. The end.

  7. So Ms. Brown, is this the libertarian moment for affirmative action??

    Again WTF Reason.

    1. The bottom line, they say, is that organizations are likely to pay for making hiring decisions based on “ascriptive preferences” rather than talent and skill.

      Doesn’t sound like a call for affirmative action to me. It is possible to believe that more diversity can be a good thing without believing that it should be required. And if private firms decide that affirmative action is the thing for them, that’s perfectly libertarian.

      1. Yeah, but there’s the rub. Is diversity so important it must override the weight of talent and skill in decisions.

        Its a form of you get what you measure. If you’re measuring diversity, you’re going to get more of it. But saying that doing so will not impact decision making based on a measurement of talent and skill, well, it never works out that way.

  8. There is a strong positive correlation between US spending on science and suicides by hanging and strangulation:

    http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

    Somebody should do something!

    1. The people being hanged and strangled are scientists who knew too much.

  9. I wonder if those two professors had this conclusion in mind before they started the study.

    1. I don’t wonder at all.

  10. They’re looking at big law firms, for pete’s sake! If your whole business model involves fucking people, you really think that’s a job for a person with no dick?

    1. Single Female Lawyer
      Fighting for her client,
      Wearing sexy miniskirts,
      And being self-reliant.

      Single Female Lawyer,
      Having lots of sex.

      1. Is that you, Ally?

    2. I happen to prefer being fucked by people with no dick quite strongly.

      I’ve known a few female lawyers who were quite capable of being just as nasty and vicious as their male counterparts.

      1. Ah, you have been around family law practitioners then?

        1. A few. And one DUI specialist who is actually insane.

        2. Must echo Zeb’s sentiment. Ruthlessness in family law is only permissible because “best interests of the child” has a trillion definitions, and there are very few bright line rules in that area. It’s a knife fight, every time, and passive aggression goes so much further in law than confrontational aggression.

          1. F it weren’t needing ruthlessness, it wouldn’t end up in court.

  11. Perhaps they should control for the political leanings of the female lawyers.
    /Captian Obvious

  12. Assuming that this is true and the study isn’t just finding a correlation where there is no causation, there are two possible explanations for this. It could be that republican donors are biased against women and promote them less. It could also be that Democratic donors are biased against men and promote them less.

    Remember, women getting promoted more under Democratic bosses necessarily means men get promoted less. You could just a easily have written this story as “Democrat bosses promote men less than Republican ones”.

    There is that old riddle about the guy and his son being in the accident and the son going into surgury only to have the surgeon say “I can’t operate this is my son”. The answer is that the surgeon is the kid’s mom and the riddle is only hard because we have the sexist assumption that the surgeon must be a man.

    Elizabeth sees to have fallen into the same sort of fallacy only in the opposite direction. She assumes the disparity must be the result of discrimination against women when in fact it could just as likely be the result of discrimination against men.

    1. You could just a easily have written this story as “Democrat bosses promote men less than Republican ones”.

      As ever, gender gaps tend to have a corollary, which is never mentioned.

      Remember, only 40% of women voting for Repubs is a gender gap that is a major problem for Repubs.

      But only 40% of men voting for Dems is a big nothingburger.

      1. Of course only 40% of women voting for Republicans might also explain why they don’t WANT to work in Republican law offices. Furthermore, the kinds of cases different law firms take on are also likely going to be different

    2. Elizabeth sees to have fallen into the same sort of fallacy only in the opposite direction. She assumes the disparity must be the result of discrimination against women when in fact it could just as likely be the result of discrimination against men.

      I think you mean “the authors of this bullshit study.” It’s hard to tell from the article if ENB agrees with the studies conclusions or not. You seem to be falling into the fallacy that just because a writer for reason writes a blog post about some BS study they must agree with it. I’m not sure if that’s a valid assumption or not in this case.

      1. She is a Cosmo-Hipster misandrist, and until I see evidence presented to the contrary, that is what I will continue to believe.

        1. Evidence smevidence, I know she’s one. Any evidence I see to the contrary I just disregard as an misinformation campaign malevolently designed to try to get me to question my genius level intellect.

          1. Care for a swig of colloidal silver?

        2. She is a Cosmo-Hipster misandrist

          I haven’t gotten that impression. General recollection is that she doesn’t derisively dismiss male rights out of hand, which puts her in the 90+ percentile of male rights friendliness.

      2. No, my point isn’t that she believes the study. It is that she never once considers the counter possibility that the study if valid but that it is men who are being discriminated against. She only considers the possibility that women are discriminated against.

        She looks at the study as being either proof or not of discrimination against women but never thinks it could be true and evidence of discrimination against men.

        So yes, she did fall into the fallacy the riddle is intended to illustrate. You seem to have fallen into the fallacy of not reading the article carefully and thinking about its implications. I did. It is just a habit of mine to parse things and see the logical gaps in them.

        1. But men are never discriminated against John, everyone knows that. /sarc

          Maybe my expectations aren’t as high. I don’t expect writers to examine every possible logical interpretation of some BS study and then examine it in detail in a blog post. If they did that every post on H&R would be “TL; DR.”

          1. It was more of an observation that she automatically thought that if the study was valid it confirmed discrimination against women. You are right she didn’t endorse the study. But the possibility that the data could show Democrats discriminate against men, which is equally consistent with the data, never occurred to her.

            And in her defense, it likely wouldn’t occur to many people, since as you say, men can never be the victims of discrimination, unless they are black or something.

            1. Since hiring and promotions are more or less a zero-sum thing, one might say that discrimination against women is always discrimination in favor of men, and vice versa.

    3. “Democrat bosses promote men less than Republican ones”

      Or perhaps: Democratic bosses have a slight preference for promoting Democrats, Republican bosses have a slight preference for promoting Republicans.

  13. I am, as one who works in the law, highly skeptical of the thrust of this article. And 2.7% is not alarming, surprising, nor unheard of. I wonder what the rate of au paire female and male hiring practices are, or what the female and male hiring practices at Hollaback or NOW are.

    Do we only care about this because law is a money making profession with the appearance of prestige? Do we only care because some target seeking victim complex craves confirmation of an implicit discriminatory system? To conclude, IF women are better for business, and liberals hire more women, it follows that liberal firms who are hiring more women would do better than discriminatory businesses.

    We shall see, won’t we.

    1. To be fair, the researchers probably chose law firms because the data was more easily available then most.

  14. “Study”

    Hilarious satire, Elizabeth.

    1. Why do you hate science?

      1. Something something… SCIENSE DENYER!!1!!!!!… mumble mumble… HERETIK!!1!!!!!11!!!

  15. This is weird, and I am interested to see further studies. My experience has been quite the opposite. I have not typically had a difficult time fitting into any common group of (all or mostly) non-liberal men. True, I do have to demonstrate an excellence most of them have not achieved, and then there’s the fairly constant state of challenge, but I’ve thrived without crying in baseball.

    In my experience, demonstrations of excellence are utterly irrelevant with progressives (let’s face facts – most progressives are not liberal).

    There are way too many variables to be able to say that “all of” such-and-such set do this thing or act that way. But as a general rule, if my boss or a goodly chunk of my coworkers vote Democrat, the job will be problematic. This makes me curious, since it’s apparently in opposition to these findings.

    1. True, I do have to demonstrate an excellence most of them have not achieved

      This perception is common among men, as well. Especially if you are competitive and your goal (realized or not) is to be the best of the bunch.

      There’s plenty of gender bias in the workforce. I just question whether, especially in large firms, it is consistently anti-female, rather than anti-male.

      1. Getting acceptance is challenging. Getting dominance in any high-pressure competitive environment is an epic quest to which many are called, and few are chosen.

        I’ve argued that women actually have an advantage in these situations. We’re unique in the picture. We stand out. We don’t have to fight for the attention of the higher-ups and people of influence; they’re already looking right at us. So is everyone else. All a gal has to do at that point is be perfect under a microscope.

        It’s a bit of a bugger. I like to think the cream will rise, so long as it is allowed. In my particular circumstances, I’ve had better success achieving acceptance among non-progressives. Progressives prefer to homogenize, by force if necessary, and promote handlers who will preserve the homogenization process rather than sell cream.

        1. Not many women notice that, or are willing to express it. It’s comparable to the “inequality” of clothes. Women can lose by dressing the wrong way, they can win by dressing the right way. Men don’t have much of playing field there; women can show a sense of style, individuality, and competence.

        2. I’ve had better success achieving acceptance among non-progressives.

          In the oppression olympics, Progressive trumps all categories, because it is fighting for the oppressed.

          My guess is that your apparent lack of the requisite RightThink is much more of a handicap among Progressives than any supposed anti female bias among non-progressives.

          Still, Vagina, so it’s not like you’re a WrongThinking *Penis*.

      2. There’s plenty of gender bias in the workforce. I just question whether, especially in large firms, it is consistently anti-female, rather than anti-male.

        All I know is my wife, who majored in Aerospace Engineering, once interviewed for a job with a large defense contractor that was an electrical engineering position with a lot of programming involved as well. Also up for the job: a white male who was an Electrical Engineering/ Computer Science double major. IOW, a perfect fit. They offered the job to her.

        I’m also an AE major, and while we graduated almost the same time, she’s had a far better career than I have. She’s gotten the chance to work in her desired discipline (structural analysis) while I’ve been stuck my whole career working in a discipline I hate and never was interested in (Systems “Engineering”) because it’s the only work I can find. The one time she was laid off, she had a new job lined up before her last day. When I’ve been laid off (several times) I was out of work for at least 3 month each time.

        Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal, but still…

        1. My anecdotes are about the same. My male (EE) classmates were struggling to find jobs, while my female classmates with similar GPA and work experience were getting multiple offers from big companies.

          Law is a bit different since females make up 55?+ of graduating law students.

        2. I think Milo has been trotting out a study that women in STEM have a 2-1 “getting the interview” advantage over men with the same qualifications.

    2. I don’t see how you could ever account for all of the factors involved. Take just one aspect of the study. it says

      The authors also pinpointed associates at America’s top 200 law firms in 2006, and followed them until they received a promotion to partner or exited the company. Women made up about 45 percent of all associates. With or without controls factored in, Republican leadership in a practice area corresponded negatively to female promotion rates in that area and positively with turnover rates.

      Maybe the areas where the partners were more Republican were areas of the law that for whatever reason attracted less qualified women? Maybe the best women lawyers do things like labor law where the partners tend to be Democrat?

      I am not saying that is the case but it might be and I don’t see how you account for that. The study assumes that women are fungible and promotion rates should be the same across all areas, which is of course absurd.

      1. followed them until they received a promotion to partner or exited the company.

        Who is to say that exiting the company is a sign of failure? Perhaps it was to a coveted in-house job? Perhaps it was to a position with better work/life balance that the women actually preferred?

        The best decision I ever made was leaving law firms and taking (for my first in-house job) a 30% pay cut. Now I hire and fire law firms. Why would I regard not working for them a sign of failure or under achievement?

        1. That is another good point. Making partner is only a good thing if you can bring in enough business to get a good share. More than a few people have made partner only to see their salary actually decline.

    3. I think this “blooding” if you will, the increase expectation upon a female by a group of males, is an excercise in trust. You say that the expectations placed upon you by men are higher than those placed upon other men. Perhaps, but maybe the competition between those other men and the men in authority is already completed; ie the “authority men” know how much to trust and where they stand with the other men.

      I believe men more generally do not give respect to people without evaluating them first.

      1. I have commonly been hired with men, and we started on the same day. With one exception, I was the only female in the group of new hires in those “HR finally cleaned out the piled resumes” interviewpaloozas.

        Is having started on the same day, doing the same job, sufficient for you? I have no idea what your industry is, but in mine, this is not atypical. Ha. Axiomatic, really.

        1. For me personally, I like to believe I am a meritocrat. And to be clear, I don’t believe one gender is any more competent in an area, such as the law, than another; law itself is too varied and specialized to hold that any one factor, such as gender, succeeds in all cases every time. Met my share of timid Tonys and brutal Brittanys in my day.

          Video of my industry

          In my anecdotal experience, the only time I have ever viewed a female colleague (or a male colleague for that matter) with contempt or scorn is when they actively attempt to explain their shortcomings as the product of someone else’s activity; here, this article appears to suggest women have an uphill battle against the boogeyman of patriarchy that is unsupported by law school admissions, percentages of women in the workforce, and single unmarried women in their thirties making more than their male counterparts. Men and women, to me, are more or less the same, with a unique exception; some of the female colleagues I have worked with like to spend a long time talking about an issue or a case in my office, instead of leaving to get it done. I dislike socializing about someone else’s work, so that does bother me a bit that there is this presumption of collaboration. But this is rare, and not to say that requests for help go unanswered at my door. Let’s all do our own work, get paid, and meet up after work for drinks to socialize.

        2. The findings marked a difference of around 3%. An outcome on some high level, as far as factors go. Interacting factors have not been discussed. There’s merely one – an independent – factor: donations.

          I’m not sure what contradiction you have in mind. I looks like you suspect that you’re uncommon in how you interact with men. — As a side note, it makes sense for men to expect that other men had to go through the same kind of life experience, that they’ve been tested by men all their lives, that they know and can predict men better than women. Given the attempts to increase the statistical representation of women, and efforts to teach women male body language, a certain of degree of additional doubt is in order. Women who speak male body language are odd. Compared to men, it’s unlikely that they speak that language as well, and it’s unlikely that it is matched with the male psychology that makes male body language natural, as opposed to artificial and imitated.

          Apart from tacit questions – challenges -, here’s an explicit one: do you think you understand and recognize all male testing/challening of men?

  16. Elizabeth, you MAYBE could have written a general article here about gender discrimination in the workplace and gotten some support from the commentariat. Maybe.

    But once you leveled a pointed finger at Team Red, oh boy, look out. Readers here don’t truck criticisms of Team Red. Sadly for you, the study didn’t level a charge against Team Blue.

    Cue the Reason Team Red apologists….

    1. good call ace, I think we should begin a new study about the diversity level of trolls on this board.

    2. Ah, another idiot who doesn’t understand cause and effect, or statistics. I guess being short also means being short on brains.

      1. It is Joe. He is short and has a low IQ and makes up for it by being really angry.

    3. “Hey ENB, notice me please! We’re the smart one ones, amirite?”

    4. leveled a pointed finger at Team Red

      Where? How?

      3.5% percentage points does not make a difference of any significance whatsoever.

      1. Based on the angry rebuttals in the comments, there’s quite a few people that think it is a “a pointed finger at Team Red”, and are angry about it.

    5. Don’t ever let it be said that Reason Team Red apologists would miss a cue call.

      1. Does your brain filter troubling things like, “Show me your evidence” or “What about X” out of your life for you?

        1. What brain would that be?

      2. Don’t ever let it be said that angry little munchkins can’t also be retarded.

    6. Even the prog trolls don’t bother reading the article.

      Reason should have a day where they just post headlines, not stories.

      1. “Choose Your Own Adventure!”

      2. But is it truly their fault? Their sources, and I use the term lightly, have been optimally designed to deliver non-scrutinized spin at light speed velocities so their faster than light data consumption can corrode any sense of organization or critical thought. I blame the sweet destructive syrup of advertising revenue. Who else would pay for their scholarly work?

        Top 10 reasons why Uncle Sam is a terrorist
        Top 8 University Safe Spaces for Trans-Squirrel Kin
        Best Comebacks for Thanksgiving Dinner
        How Bernie’s Tax Plan Actually Increases Prosperity and Competition

    7. Dunno if you’ve noticed, Jack, but I’ve been cheering on the destruction of the GOP by Trumpism.

      My criticisms are based on my first-hand knowledge of how the law biz actually works. What are you basing your defense on?

      Now that you mention it, though, it would be interesting to run a similar study on, say, university administration. I wonder what that would find?

      1. Are you asking Jackass Ass for a cogent, logical response? My thoughts and prayers are with you.

      2. I never said ALL commenters are TR apologists. Maybe you’re not. But even you surely must admit oat are.

        I never offered an opinion on the study. It may be right, it may not. I criticized the immediate knee jerk reaction here to apologize for TR. you can count on it…happens every time.

        If that was a study that in any way criticized TB, hardly any commenter here would have criticized it.

        Your suggestion of another study might be a good one.

        1. Who is apologizing for TR? What is TR? What are you talking about?

          I’m reading relatively few eyerolls at the predictability of academics discovering (again!) that Repubs are evil monsters.

          I’m reading quite a few cogent criticisms and explanations of why this study is utter crap, and is being presented as proof of something it does not prove at all, namely women are much less likely to be promoted, and much more likely to leave their firms

          Even if you look past all the other problems, 3% isn’t “much” anything.

          1. So, keeping with my only point, that the comment section at Reason is replete with TR apologists (and that is my point), here was a study published here on discrimination by liberals against conservatives. Read the comment section. With only one exception, no one questioned the efficacy of the study.

            https://reason.com/blog/2012/10…..st#comment

            Like I said, if the above study in any way questioned liberals, it would have been accepted here. Not so when TR is questioned.

            1. And…Joe has just set about proving that he does, in fact, have no understanding of cause and effect or statistics. You really are retarded, aren’t you, you little munchkin? I bet you want cake!

              1. They all want cake, WTF, they all do.

            2. Not only is your link from 2012 but the very first comment says “Keep in mind this is one very small field of academia” which is saying that the study is complete crap and isn’t useful unless you only care about one small slice of academia.

        2. Undescribed “others” are critical of a study I have no credible opinion on! Oh no!!

          1. Jack literally can’t even.

    8. The weird thing is that everyone thinks I’m trying to advocate some specific point about gender discrimination when I have pretty simply and straightforwardly reported on the basic facts of a study. In general, unless I am explicitly praising or tearing down a study, my attitude is: hey, here is a thing that may be of mild interest to people, and from which they can draw their own conclusions. The horror, I know.

      1. Look, you can’t expect a comment section on a libertarian site not to be rife with fragile masculinity.

        Or not to reflexively identify with Republicans.

        1. For what it is worth I did five-hundred push-ups yesterday.

        2. Don’t forget chicks wishing for dicks.

        3. “Look, you can’t expect a comment section on a libertarian site not to be rife with fragile masculinity.”

          The horror, I know. Not sure what conclusions to draw from your presence. You’re not trying to help, are you?

      2. ENB we can all read between the lines, you hate red-blooded republicans and white males. There’s nothing wrong with that.

      3. We’re all convinced Bailey’s in the bag for AGW and Sheldon’s an antisemitic isolationist, so take it with a grain of salt.

        1. Oh, and Irish is an unrepentant Klansman and Illocust is a Tulpa sock, and Nikki is a closet statist misandrist. Just things I’ve picked up reading the more rabid commenters.

          1. STEVE SMITH SUFFER MUCH SLANDER TOO!

        2. No, we think Sheldon is a pathetic apologist for the murderous Iranian regime.

          Well, I do, anyway. Not anti-semetic, but he certainly finds some creative ways to blame Israel for things.

        3. Come on now.

          Sheldon has had two whole articles in a row where he hasn’t blamed Da Joos for trying to prevent their extermination. Cut him some slack. He’s growing.

      4. I guess it could just be a reaction to the headline you wrote: “Bosses Who Donate to Republicans Are Less Likely to Promote Female Staff”. Because a headline saying “Bosses Who Donate to Democrats Are Less Likely to Promote Male Staff” would just as accurately reflect the information in the study, which is what the majority of comments seem to be pointing out, in other words, the “study” doesn’t really show much of anything, in spite of the headline.

        1. ENB chose to frame the study results in the usual Progressive way – anti Red Team, anti male. Much as the study members themselves chose to frame their results.

          Despite this habitual framing on both their parts, at least one member of the study has it right, which is one more than usual:

          You could have conservative managers who don’t promote women enough and you can have liberal managers who promote women more than they otherwise should.”

          Though even here, notice that the comment was all about women? But, I’ll still take the baby steps.

      5. I have a bad case of social science overload. NPR now trots out one of their guys every week (Friday mornings, I think) to cover the latest unverified, unrepeated social “science” study. Then they typically torture the results to imply some broad meaning. It’s ridiculous.

        I don’t recall if it was from a commenter, or if it was sited as part of refuting the infamous “campus assault study”, but IIRC, there was a link here at Reason to an actual hard science journal that covered the unrepeatability and just plain poor use of scientific methodology being used in most of the headline grabbing studies.

        I’m not against seeing coverage of social science findings, but I’m not really interested unless there is reference to multiple instances of verification, and a clear indication that they realize correlation is not causality.

      6. The facts don’t point to discrimination though. They point to a slight discrepancy. Not the same thing.

    9. How does the article “point a finger at Team Red”?

  17. You’ve got to love the assumption that women don’t play any part in whether they get promoted. It can’t be that conservative women (who are more likely to be married and have the option of working less) are more likely to work in conservative workplaces with conservative bosses.

    1. http://www.pewresearch.org/fac…..ats-ideal/

      Statistically, mothers with children under 18 are more likely to consider part time work ideal. Generally, ambitious career goals and getting promoted easily is incompatible with part time work.

      1. Especially in law firms, where there is one and only metric that counts when evaluating associates:

        Billable. Hours.

        1. Is that true of physicians, too? Sincere question.

        2. We are thinking of switching over to Rocket Matter. Thoughts?

      2. That’s when the talk of evil “leaking pipes” starts, even in respect to women who openly express their plan to “leak” out.

  18. Fortunately, as I’m to understand it, the GOP is funded by only about two or three old, billionaire white guys, and the Dems are funded by millions and millions of students, pensioners, hard-working moms, and other grassroots folk at $5 or $10 a pop. Therefore, the impact of these sexist, Republican, curmudgeon bosses can’t be that widespread.

    1. Dude, the KOCHTOPUS!!!1!!! is everywhere!

    2. but those old white guys secretly control and own everything in america.

  19. Something something… RETHUGLIKKKAN WAR ON WOMYN!!1!!!11!!!!!!!1!!!!

  20. They haven’t actually shown that the Republican owners were * wrong * about promoting slightly more men than women. Did they even look at whether the women who were not promoted made more or less money for the firm than the men who were not promoted? Or whether the women who * were * promoted made more or less money for the firm than the men prior to being promoted?

    1. Of course not. And they never considered the possibility that the problem is that Democrats are biased against men, which is equally consistent with the data.

  21. I think you guys are missing the larger point – this is a scientific study to prove some larger point. But science itself, with its logic and reasoning, is a patrio-normative social construct that supremacizes and privileges itself as the only way to validate the truthfulness of a proposition, when we should strive for the inclusivisity to accept that the truths to be gained from intuition and belief is every bit as valid a system of knowledge. You say you “know” something is true because science validates your opinion of what is true, I say I know something is true because my belief that it is true validates my opinion. Who are you to impose your system of knowledge upon me?

    1. *reads, ponders, gives power fist salute*

  22. “Our results should not be interpreted as ‘anti-conservative’ or ‘pro-liberal.'”

    Yeah, right.

    There is plenty of good rebuttal here, starting with the most liberal office manager of all:


    NYT: As Obama Spotlights Gender Gap in Wages, His Own Payroll Draws Scrutiny

    Quote:
    A study released in January showed that female White House staff members make on average 88 cents for every dollar a male staff member earns.

    Mr. Obama has come under sustained criticism for appointing more men than women to his administration, though the gender breakdown of the White House staff itself is about even.

    A study by the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University, for example, found that women make up 35 percent of the president’s cabinet … down from the 41 percent hiring level during the Clinton administration.

  23. conservative male partners were 2.7 percent less likely than other partners to choose female associates for their deal teams. Liberal male partners were 0.8 percent more likely than moderates to choose a female associate for their teams.

    What’s the margin of error? Are those even statistically significant numbers? Also, it it possible that since women are often times more liberal than men that liberal women get pissy and quit conservative firms before making partner? This study, like most social science horseshit, seems like a load of hokum.

    The bottom line, they say, is that organizations are likely to pay for making hiring decisions based on “ascriptive preferences” rather than talent and skill.

    No. Shit.

    1. The fact that women tend to be progressive and progressives have a difficult time tolerating political difference is a very possible explanation for this.

      1. progressives have a difficult time tolerating political difference is a very possible explanation for this.

        People like that are the worst.

        1. You know who else couldn’t tolerate political difference?

          1. Libertarians?

            1. Good to see you have a admirer. You can’t depend on Cytoxic and me for all of the sexual tension here. And the raw lust and school girl admiration MJ Green has for you is a good contrast to the conflict driven tension Cytoxic and I have.

  24. I’m making over ?5k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. AZ Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. For further details

    Check this link http://www.workprospects.com

  25. “merger-and-acquisition deals which U.S. law firms were involved in from 2007 through 2012”

    Refresh my memory, isn’t that a period in which the legal biz was going through some…economic challenges?

    1. That’s also a pretty small slice of the legal biz. M & A work is probably, at a guess, maybe 20% of the work of a big national firm.

  26. Study = Says Shit Confirming Popular Bias

    – During an election year, which means its even more factish and scientastic

    1. It takes an argument to beat an argument.

      1. See, above, many arguments.

        1. I don’t see these arguments. There’s unresolved questions over the statistical analysis and harrumphing over ‘election years,’ but nothing solid. The findings seem uncontroversial to me. Conservatives are conservative and liberals are liberal. Seems self-evident.

          1. What are you saying here?

            1. GILMORE and the rest of them see nothing wrong in conservatives avoiding hiring women. But rather than admitting the obvious, or, god forbid, defending the practice, they are happy to snipe at the study, those who are responsible for it, or those who write about it..

              1. How did you determine they are avoiding hiring women?

                1. That’s what the article is about.

                  1. Your inability of active unwillingness to understand that not statistically significant or several other points made are logical, accurate, and strong objections against the conclusions of the referenced study, then you have a problem.

                    But for those willing to analyze the study and objections, most comments are not just bitching, but in fact providing the very evidence you falsely, and likely maliciously, claim is missing.

                    I wonder since you seem to actually want to match the stereotype of the internet troll, what exactly do you get out of it?

                    Maybe at your funeral they can espouse all your wonderful posts? Or maybe on your tombstone, “Here lies M – he could troll with the best of ’em”.

                    Not sure, but it seems with the enthusiasm with which you do nothing but rile, it must be an important part of your identity.

                    In fact, fit your sake, I hope people keep replying to you. Hate to see what you’d become if you were as impotent as a troll as you likely are in real life.

                    1. “But for those willing to analyze the study and objections”

                      Who are you referring to here? Whose comments in particular are worth reading? What do you think of GILMORE’s contribution? I think it’s pretty typical of the intellectual cowardice displayed towards the whole question. Instead of saying ‘conservatives have the right to hire who they want, and if they don’t want to hire women that’s their business,’ we get a lot of harrumphing, and quibbling and raising hypocritical objections. All about the study, not about its findings which are self-evidently true. And you write as though throwing more time and resources into the study will change the results or in any way.

                      ” you do nothing but rile”

                      I’m riling you? Something wrong with that? Reason should be a rile-free zone? Why not report me for abusing the posting privileges? Tell them I’m victimizing you.

      2. Mtrueman, Egotistical Moron = Thinks people mock and abuse him because his massive-intellect intimidates them

        1. I only ask that you try to mount an argument to make any point you feel needs to be made. You can include all the hand-wringing over the elections and gratuitous insults you are comfortable with. It’s your lack of argument I’m taking issue with.

          1. mtrueman|3.1.16 @ 12:27PM|#
            “I only ask that you try to mount an argument to make any point you feel needs to be made.”

            You’re a fucking ignoramus who was told you weren’t really a worthless consumer of oxygen by someone.
            They lied.
            That’s the only argument that’s required here.

            1. “They lied.”

              That’s something that remains to be proved. Aside from that, conservatives are conservative and liberals are liberals. You think bigger better studies are necessary to establish this?

              1. What about this study makes cons cons and libs libs?

                1. “What about this study…”

                  It’s nothing to do with the study. It comes down to tolerance. Use a dictionary if you are unclear what conservative or liberal mean. Conservatives have issues with tolerating women in the work place. Is that really such a surprise? You really want a public institution to devote ever greater resources on this matter so that your doubts on this study can be assuaged?

                  1. How did you determine this definition? When you say tolerance which definition are you using?

                  2. If they have issue with women in the work place…how come the percent difference is only 3 pct? Would expect it to be much higher. Also they are clearly getting hired so not sure what you are talking about

          2. When will you provide an argument? All you have said is cons are cons and libs are libs?

            1. “When will you provide an argument? ”

              All you have said is cons are cons and libs are libs?

              It’s called a tautology. There is no argument to prove it. You just have to accept it as self evident. A is A. You have trouble with this?

              1. Ok so what is your point you are trying to make here?

                Also would like some substantiation of your cons don’t hire women claims.

                1. “Ok so what is your point you are trying to make here?”

                  I’m pointing out intellectual cowardice, like I’ve already mentioned. Need me to repeat it?

              2. Is this true of you mtrueman????

                Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

                1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
                2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

                Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

                He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

                Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

              3. Is this true of you mtrueman????

                Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

                1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
                2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

                Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

                He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

                Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

              4. Is this true of you mtrueman????

                Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

                1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
                2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

                Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

                He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

                Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

              5. Is this true of you mtrueman????

                Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

                1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
                2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

                Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

                He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

                Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

              6. Is this true of you mtrueman????

                Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

                1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
                2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

                Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

                He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

                Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

              7. Is this true of you mtrueman????

                Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

                1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
                2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

                Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

                He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

                Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

              8. Is this true of you mtrueman????

                Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

                1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
                2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

                Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

                He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

                Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

              9. Is this true of you mtrueman????

                Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

                1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
                2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

                Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

                He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

                Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

              10. Is this true of you mtrueman????

                Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

                1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
                2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

                Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

                He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

                Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

              11. Is this true of you mtrueman????

                Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

                1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
                2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

                Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

                He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

                Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

              12. Is this true of you mtrueman????

                Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

                1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
                2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

                Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

                He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

                Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

              13. Is this true of you mtrueman????

                Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

                1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
                2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

                Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

                He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

                Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

              14. Is this true of you mtrueman????

                Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

                1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
                2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

                Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

                He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

                Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

    2. – During an election year, which means its even more factish and scientastic

      Yeah, they really should’ve gone with the study where conservatives are more likely to outsource jobs to parts of the world where women are still stoned to death and/or used as sex slaves.

      This study won’t even be a blip on Trump’s radar.

      1. “the study where conservatives are more likely to outsource jobs to parts of the world where women are still stoned to death and/or used as sex slaves.”

        Ugh. Islamophobia much?

  27. I wouldn’t’ve guessed that republicans tended toward being better judges of competency, but apparently, if this report is not deformed in some way, they are.

  28. No time to read all the comments, but has this possibility been considered?

    1. Conservative women prefer to work for conservative bosses.

    2. Conservative women are more likely to want to quit work to raise a family after they get married, rather than keep working and try to get promoted.

    1. Yep I posted something to that effect too

    2. Self-selection.

      By the way, did they look at non-monetary benefits?

  29. Alternate, just-as-valid headline: Bosses who donate to Democrats likely to over-promote underqualified female staff.

  30. Here is how you know you can disregard this study:

    These conservative law-firm heads “are probably not consciously discriminating against women,” Carnahan said in a statement.

    Uh, perhaps the liberal law-firm heads are consciously discriminating against men?

    (I’m not saying that is what happened. I am saying any scientist would recognize the possibility.)

    Or you could look at the incredible tininess of the different.

    1. “Here is how you know you can disregard this study”

      I think this is as good an example of intellectual cowardice as any of the comments here. Conservatives, rather than defend the choice to not hire women, nit pick at the survey, question the motives of the surveyors and other quibbles, anything but agree with the findings and defend them. A case book example of intellectual cowardice.

      1. Wouldn’t this be a false dichotomy? Where has it been established that they dont hire women cause they are women? that doesnt make sense.

        1. “Where has it been established that they dont hire women cause they are women?”

          You got a better reason for not hiring women?

          1. Because there are fewer qualified female applicants?

            1. How many qualified female applicants does it take to fill a position?

          2. How did you arrive that this was the reason? You are driving the argument down your own rabbit hole. Effective strategy on your part. Define the terms so to speak

            1. It’s called switching the burden of proof. It is a favorite tactic of leftists, right behind ad hominem arguments, because leftists embrace logical fallacies as persuasive arguments. Once the burden of proof has been switched, in this case it is now up to you to prove that conservatives don’t hate women, the leftist can plug their ears, yell “La la la I can’t hear you!” and then claim victory.

              1. Ah yes good point. He did do this didn’t he? He established his own terms (conclusion) and calls on others to refute.

                Lol at him calling others lazy.

              2. “to you to prove that conservatives don’t hate women,”

                I’m calling on conservatives to embrace and celebrate their hatred of women, not deny it. That’s the courageous non-PC stance to take. This hemming and hawing I see here is a perfect example of intellectual cowardice.

          3. Is this true of you mtrueman????

            Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

            1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
            2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

            Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

            He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

            Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

      2. So if my study shows mtrueman is a goat fucker, no matter how flawed the study, no matter how lacking the evidence, mtrueman is to only stand up and actively embrace his new public rules as goat fucker.

        Any discussion by mtrueman objecting to the study will only be seen as both proof of the study’s conclusion and evidence of mtrueman’s intellectual cowardice.

        Good to know

        1. “mtrueman is to only stand up and actively embrace his new public rules as goat fucker.”

          Only if mtrueman is a goat fucker with the courage of his convictions. Otherwise he won’t stand up and embrace anything but rather quibble over trivia just like the cowards on display here.

          1. twat

    2. perhaps the liberal law-firm heads are consciously discriminating against men?

      I’d expect as much, given that government enforced discrimination against men is part of their ideology and political platform.

  31. A rapidly growing body of research suggests that gender diversity in corporate ranks can be a boon for business performance.

    This research seems to have some pretty serious causality issues. Companies that are doing well already are more likely to have functions and people focused on the “soft issues” and those roles tend to be disproportionately staffed by women (no, I’m not saying all women are soft issues types, just that more women than men work in soft issues roles). In contrast, companies that hare having a tough time are more likely to pare down to the essential roles.

    My observation is that companies that succeed tend to be those with an absolute lack of diversity in obsessive commitment to the company’s core mission. Once companies start wasting time and resources on gender politics, it’s usually a pretty bad sign for their outlook.

    1. Things like cash flow, profit margin and concrete performance matrices are just racist constructs created to keep women and minorities down Bill. Didn’t you know that?

      1. It isn’t even that women are necessarily bad when measured by those things. It’s just that where they tend to be accretive to those things is when companies are already doing well. Let me put it this way. When Lou Gerstner came on board as CEO of IBM, the company was on the verge of collapse. When asked about his vision for the company, he replied “The last thing IBM needs right now is a vision.” He wasn’t spending a lot of time focusing on marketing staff and HR directors. The emphasis had to be on accountants (of the cost-cutting variety), engineers and salesmen. Their focus had to be on survival, rather than work-life balance or stakeholder culture. In that sort of environment, you’re going to get a lot more men than women. On the other hand, if you’re running a growing company with already terrific prospects, it’s the marketers, the HR people, and the corporate culture builders who can help secure your place.

  32. It seems they didn’t control for performance.

    “We find clear evidence of a gender gap in annual performance with respect
    to both measures. Male lawyers bill ten percent more hours and bring in more than
    twice the new client revenue than do female lawyers. We demonstrate that the
    differential impact across genders in the presence of young children and differences in
    aspirations to become a law firm partner account for a large share of the difference in
    performance. We also show that accounting for performance has important
    consequences for gender gaps in lawyers’ earnings and subsequent promotion.” – http://tinyurl.com/performancegaplaw

    http://tinyurl.com/performancegap

    1. It seems they didn’t control for performance.

      Didn’t fit the narrative.

      1. The study, which the article referenced and all comments are about, is a study defining pay differences by gender which did not control for performance.

        The fact someone can post to another study which at least claims to control for performance has nothing to do with this study which doesn’t control for performance.

        So your implication that this was missed because no one here wants to look at evidence to the contrary based upon a link to a study no one was discussing is either a very, very stupid mistake or willful ignorance in hopes that the thoughtful objections given were wrong.

        Shorter version: Your (false) narrative gave you confidence that you an irrelevant link was evidence you were right and all those pesky comments which disagreed with your world view were in fact so very wrong. Or rather, you directly implied others are falling to see the truth due to confirmation bias, but your point only proves your bias.

        1. That was almost coherent, Michael. The article’s study found a differential in choosing women. It correlated that with political worldview. It didn’t offer an explanation as to whether the “conservative” 3% fewer women, or the liberal 0,8(?)% more women are the fair or best business choice. (It briefly acknowledges market pressures.) Thus, it barely makes steps toward determining whether there’s appropriate or wrongful discrimination (choice, selection), but it controlled for some measures, such as – roughly – qualification. ENB, on her own, mentions studies about productive gender balances (not limited to parity).

          Productivity is another word for performance. And the studies I mention evaluate performance, in the field of law, no less. Try to outline why the question of wrongful v. reasonable discrimination is irrelevant here. This is about the promotion of women (see the headline); a study that doesn’t control for performance, which is – arguably – relevant to being (not) promoted, is odd, at best. When, after controlling for all other factors but the boss’s political worldview and employee performance, a promotion gap remains, that gap can be due to performance differences that bosses of different political worldview are differently willing to make part of their decisions to (not) promote.
          What “toughtful objections” (to what?) are you talking about? What “narrative” do you see?

  33. My advice to young entrepreneurs is not to hire anyone. Treat your employees like family but 1099 them.

  34. “A rapidly growing body of research suggests that gender diversity in corporate ranks can be a boon for business performance.”

    We’re told these corporate types are blood-thirsty seekers of profit. If this line of baloney were true, you think one of those bloodthirsty profit seekers wouldn’t be out-diversifying his competition?
    I’m calling bullshit.

    1. This is the age old fallacy of progessivism; “different is better” because it can’t possibly be worse. Endless social experimentation, and most social programs are insolvent within a generation. There is this burning need, I believe, in people that experience an overwhelming guilt for what they consume to attempt to rectify or justify their conspicuous consumption. “How do I stop feeling burning shame as I eat my McDonalds at a stop light in front of a homeless man claiming to be a Veteran?” “How do I look at the poor black neighborhoods in Democratically controlled cities and not feel remorse for their plight?” SOMETHING MUST BE DONE, begin the experimentation. The Great Society is born.

      1. The founding fathers must have believed in diversity. The went as far as Africa to make sure America was created with a diverse population. Particularly a diversity that welcomed those with an immunity to malaria, which was very punishing on settlers south of the M&D line..

        1. What?

      2. “different is better”

        Different is only better when the right people benefit from the proposed difference.

    2. I think identity politics is all what mtrueman has…otherwise his or her self worth would be irrelevant. They try to take correlations, statistics and massage them to fit a particular narrative to pat themselves on the back.

      1. ” They try to take correlations, statistics and massage them to fit a particular narrative to pat themselves on the back”

        You don’t need statistics to tell you that liberals are liberals and conservatives are conservatives. You can get them, sure as long as you or someone else pays for them. These studies don’t go on trees, you know.

        1. I don’t understand what this post means with respect to the study. What are cons and libs exactly?

        2. What about this study says liberals are liberals and cons are cons?

          Can you provide the definition in your own opinion of each and how this 3% difference shows that? Seems to me that is noise imo.

          Curious to your methodology

        3. Is this true of you mtrueman????

          Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

          1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
          2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

          Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

          He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

          Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

        4. Is this true of you mtrueman????

          Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

          1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
          2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

          Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

          He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

          Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

        5. Is this true of you mtrueman????

          Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

          1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
          2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

          Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

          He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

          Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

        6. Is this true of you mtrueman????

          Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

          1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
          2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

          Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

          He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

          Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

        7. Is this true of you mtrueman????

          Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

          1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
          2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

          Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

          He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

          Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

        8. Is this true of you mtrueman????

          Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

          1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
          2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

          Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

          He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

          Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

        9. Is this true of you mtrueman????

          Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

          1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
          2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

          Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

          He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

          Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

        10. Is this true of you mtrueman????

          Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

          1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
          2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

          Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

          He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

          Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

        11. Is this true of you mtrueman????

          Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

          1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
          2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

          Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

          He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

          Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

        12. Is this true of you mtrueman????

          Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

          1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
          2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

          Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

          He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

          Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

        13. Is this true of you mtrueman????

          Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

          1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
          2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

          Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

          He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

          Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

        14. Is this true of you mtrueman????

          Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

          1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
          2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

          Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

          He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

          Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

        15. Is this true of you mtrueman????

          Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

          1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
          2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

          Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

          He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

          Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

        16. Is this true of you mtrueman????

          Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

          1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
          2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

          Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

          He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

          Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

        17. Is this true of you mtrueman????

          Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

          1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
          2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

          Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

          He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

          Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

        18. Is this true of you mtrueman????

          Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

          1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
          2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

          Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

          He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

          Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

        19. Is this true of you mtrueman????

          Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

          1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
          2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

          Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

          He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

          Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

        20. Is this true of you mtrueman????

          Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

          1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
          2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

          Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

          He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

          Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

        21. Is this true of you mtrueman????

          Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

          1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
          2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

          Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

          He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

          Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

        22. Is this true of you mtrueman????

          Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

          1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
          2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

          Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

          He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

          Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

        23. Is this true of you mtrueman????

          Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

          1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
          2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

          Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

          He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

          Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

        24. Is this true of you mtrueman????

          Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

          1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
          2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

          Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

          He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

          Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

        25. Is this true of you mtrueman????

          Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

          1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
          2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

          Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

          He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

          Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

        26. Is this true of you mtrueman????

          Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

          1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
          2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

          Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

          He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

          Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

        27. Is this true of you mtrueman????

          Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

          1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
          2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

          Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

          He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

          Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

        28. Is this true of you mtrueman????

          Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

          1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
          2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

          Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

          He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

          Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

  35. A look at large corporate law firms in the U.S. says yes.

    Mrs. widget is an electrical engineer. Mr. widget, me, is a mechanical engineer. That bitch consistently makes more money than me.

  36. This only proves that the corporate world is full of tightasses. End subsidies. Next problem?

    1. A common quip among big government and big capitalists managers is that “it will last until I retire.”

      1. Unless it’s Jim Crow. Then put down the cigar and grab the firehose.

  37. Hey all, new here….is MTRUEMAN one of the disingenuous trolls?

    He was trying to claim that cons dont hire women cause they are women. When at most this study shows maybe 3% difference which is just noise in my opinion

    1. “When at most this study shows maybe 3% difference which is just noise in my opinion”

      Why not donate some money to the university? I’m sure a starving academic out there would love the funding to explore this fascinating matter more broadly and deeply.

      1. Pay for it yourself and stop looking to mooch off of others.

        1. You are the one questioning the study. If you want to clarify the issue, further, more costly study is required. Put up or shut up is all I’m saying.

  38. Mtrueman how did you arrive at the conclusion that cons don’t tolerate or hire women? You projecting?

  39. Mtrueman how did you arrive at the conclusion that cons don’t tolerate or hire women? You projecting?

  40. Mtrueman how did you arrive at the conclusion that cons don’t tolerate or hire women? You projecting?

  41. Mtrueman how did you arrive at the conclusion that cons don’t tolerate or hire women? You projecting?

  42. Mtrueman how did you arrive at the conclusion that cons don’t tolerate or hire women? You projecting?

  43. Mtrueman how did you arrive at the conclusion that cons don’t tolerate or hire women? You projecting?

  44. Mtrueman how did you arrive at the conclusion that cons don’t tolerate or hire women? You projecting?

  45. Mtrueman how did you arrive at the conclusion that cons don’t tolerate or hire women? You projecting?

  46. Mtrueman how did you arrive at the conclusion that cons don’t tolerate or hire women? You projecting?

  47. Mtrueman how did you arrive at the conclusion that cons don’t tolerate or hire women? You projecting?

  48. Mtrueman how did you arrive at the conclusion that cons don’t tolerate or hire women? You projecting?

  49. Mtrueman how did you arrive at the conclusion that cons don’t tolerate or hire women? You projecting?

  50. Mtrueman how did you arrive at the conclusion that cons don’t tolerate or hire women? You projecting?

  51. Mtrueman how did you arrive at the conclusion that cons don’t tolerate or hire women? You projecting?

  52. Mtrueman how did you arrive at the conclusion that cons don’t tolerate or hire women? You projecting?

  53. Mtrueman how did you arrive at the conclusion that cons don’t tolerate or hire women? You projecting?

  54. Mtrueman how did you arrive at the conclusion that cons don’t tolerate or hire women? You projecting?

  55. Mtrueman how did you arrive at the conclusion that cons don’t tolerate or hire women? You projecting?

  56. Mtrueman how did you arrive at the conclusion that cons don’t tolerate or hire women? You projecting?

  57. Mtrueman how did you arrive at the conclusion that cons don’t tolerate or hire women? You projecting?

  58. Mtrueman how did you arrive at the conclusion that cons don’t tolerate or hire women? You projecting?

  59. Mtrueman how did you arrive at the conclusion that cons don’t tolerate or hire women? You projecting?

  60. Mtrueman how did you arrive at the conclusion that cons don’t tolerate or hire women? You projecting?

  61. Mtrueman how did you arrive at the conclusion that cons don’t tolerate or hire women? You projecting?

  62. Mtrueman how did you arrive at the conclusion that cons don’t tolerate or hire women? You projecting?

  63. Mtrueman how did you arrive at the conclusion that cons don’t tolerate or hire women? You projecting?

  64. Mtrueman how did you arrive at the conclusion that cons don’t tolerate or hire women? You projecting?

  65. Mtrueman how did you arrive at the conclusion that cons don’t tolerate or hire women? You projecting?

  66. Mtrueman how did you arrive at the conclusion that cons don’t tolerate or hire women? You projecting?

  67. Mtrueman how did you arrive at the conclusion that cons don’t tolerate or hire women? You projecting?

  68. Mtrueman how did you arrive at the conclusion that cons don’t tolerate or hire women? You projecting?

  69. Mtrueman how did you arrive at the conclusion that cons don’t tolerate or hire women? You projecting?

  70. Mtrueman how did you arrive at the conclusion that cons don’t tolerate or hire women? You projecting?

  71. Mtrueman how did you arrive at the conclusion that cons don’t tolerate or hire women? You projecting?

  72. Mtrueman how did you arrive at the conclusion that cons don’t tolerate or hire women? You projecting?

  73. Mtrueman how did you arrive at the conclusion that cons don’t tolerate or hire women? You projecting?

  74. Mtrueman how did you arrive at the conclusion that cons don’t tolerate or hire women? You projecting?

  75. Mtrueman how did you arrive at the conclusion that cons don’t tolerate or hire women? You projecting?

  76. Mtrueman how did you arrive at the conclusion that cons don’t tolerate or hire women? You projecting?

  77. Mtrueman how did you arrive at the conclusion that cons don’t tolerate or hire women? You projecting?

  78. Mtrueman how did you arrive at the conclusion that cons don’t tolerate or hire women? You projecting?

  79. Mtrueman how did you arrive at the conclusion that cons don’t tolerate or hire women? You projecting?

  80. Mtrueman how did you arrive at the conclusion that cons don’t tolerate or hire women? You projecting?

    1. The squirrel apocalypse is upon us.

  81. Is this true of you mtrueman???????????

    Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

    1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
    2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

    Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

    He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

    Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

  82. Is this true of you mtrueman???????????

    Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

    1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
    2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

    Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

    He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

    Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

  83. Is this true of you mtrueman???????????

    Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

    1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
    2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

    Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

    He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

    Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

  84. Is this true of you mtrueman???????????

    Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

    1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
    2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

    Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

    He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

    Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

  85. Is this true of you mtrueman???????????

    Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

    1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
    2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

    Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

    He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

    Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

  86. Is this true of you mtrueman???????????

    Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

    1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
    2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

    Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

    He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

    Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

  87. Is this true of you mtrueman???????????

    Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

    1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
    2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

    Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

    He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

    Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

  88. Is this true of you mtrueman???????????

    Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

    1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
    2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

    Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

    He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

    Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

  89. Is this true of you mtrueman???????????

    Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

    1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
    2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

    Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

    He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

    Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

  90. Is this true of you mtrueman???????????

    Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

    1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
    2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

    Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

    He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

    Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

  91. Is this true of you mtrueman???????????

    Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

    1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
    2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

    Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

    He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

    Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

  92. Is this true of you mtrueman???????????

    Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

    1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
    2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

    Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

    He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

    Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

  93. Is this true of you mtrueman???????????

    Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

    1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
    2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

    Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

    He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

    Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

  94. Is this true of you mtrueman???????????

    Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

    1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
    2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

    Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

    He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

    Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

  95. Is this true of you mtrueman???????????

    Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

    1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
    2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

    Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

    He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

    Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

  96. Is this true of you mtrueman???????????

    Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

    1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
    2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

    Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

    He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

    Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

  97. Is this true of you mtrueman???????????

    Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

    1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
    2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

    Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

    He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

    Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

  98. Is this true of you mtrueman???????????

    Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

    1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
    2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

    Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

    He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

    Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

  99. Is this true of you mtrueman???????????

    Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

    1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
    2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

    Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

    He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

    Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

  100. Is this true of you mtrueman???????????

    Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

    1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
    2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

    Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

    He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

    Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

  101. Is this true of you mtrueman???????????

    Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

    1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
    2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

    Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

    He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

    Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

  102. Is this true of you mtrueman???????????

    Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

    1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
    2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

    Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

    He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

    Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

  103. Is this true of you mtrueman???????????

    Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

    1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
    2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

    Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

    He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

    Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

  104. Is this true of you mtrueman???????????

    Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

    1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
    2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

    Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

    He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

    Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

  105. Is this true of you mtrueman???????????

    Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

    1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
    2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

    Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

    He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

    Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

  106. Is this true of you mtrueman???????????

    Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

    1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
    2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

    Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

    He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

    Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

  107. Is this true of you mtrueman???????????

    Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

    1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
    2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

    Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

    He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

    Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

  108. Is this true of you mtrueman???????????

    Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

    1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
    2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

    Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

    He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

    Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

  109. Is this true of you mtrueman???????????

    Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

    1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
    2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

    Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

    He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

    Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

  110. Is this true of you mtrueman???????????

    Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

    1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
    2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

    Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

    He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

    Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

  111. Is this true of you mtrueman???????????

    Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

    1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
    2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

    Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

    He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

    Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

  112. Is this true of you mtrueman???????????

    Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

    1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
    2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

    Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

    He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

    Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

  113. Is this true of you mtrueman???????????

    Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

    1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
    2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

    Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

    He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

    Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

  114. Is this true of you mtrueman???????????

    Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

    1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
    2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

    Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

    He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

    Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

  115. Is this true of you mtrueman???????????

    Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

    1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
    2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

    Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

    He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

    Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

  116. Is this true of you mtrueman???????????

    Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

    1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
    2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

    Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

    He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

    Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

  117. Is this true of you mtrueman???????????

    Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

    1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
    2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

    Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

    He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

    Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

  118. Is this true of you mtrueman???????????

    Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

    1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
    2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

    Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

    He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

    Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

  119. Is this true of you mtrueman???????????

    Mark Trueman has, on several occasions, opened up as to why he comments here:

    1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
    2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.

    Basically, he likes to make the puppets dance. He posts offensive statemetns, often that are factually incorrect, as a form of bait. He’s trolling for reactions. Once someone bites, he sets the hook by offensively misstating their responses. And then he just makes sure he always gets the last word, going for hours. He doesn’t argue in good faith; he redefines words in order to make his false statements arguably sound true.

    He argues and wrangles for hours, because the rage and frustration of his interlocutor gives him an almost sexual pleasure.

    Nothing he says is informative or educational. Everything he says is purposed solely to waste your time and to annoy you. Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.

    1. “Thus, everything he writes here is literally worthless to anyone here to debate or learn.”

      At least I don’t repeat myself.

      1. You sure about that?

        I count at least 5 times you said “cons are cons” and “libs are libs”

      2. You sure about that?

        I count at least 5 times you said “cons are cons” and “libs are libs”

      3. You sure about that?

        I count at least 5 times you said “cons are cons” and “libs are libs”

      4. You sure about that?

        I count at least 5 times you said “cons are cons” and “libs are libs”

      5. You sure about that?

        I count at least 5 times you said “cons are cons” and “libs are libs”

      6. You sure about that?

        I count at least 5 times you said “cons are cons” and “libs are libs”

      7. You sure about that?

        I count at least 5 times you said “cons are cons” and “libs are libs”

      8. You sure about that?

        I count at least 5 times you said “cons are cons” and “libs are libs”

      9. You sure about that?

        I count at least 5 times you said “cons are cons” and “libs are libs”

      10. You sure about that?

        I count at least 5 times you said “cons are cons” and “libs are libs”

      11. You sure about that?

        I count at least 5 times you said “cons are cons” and “libs are libs”

      12. You sure about that?

        I count at least 5 times you said “cons are cons” and “libs are libs”

      13. You sure about that?

        I count at least 5 times you said “cons are cons” and “libs are libs”

      14. You sure about that?

        I count at least 5 times you said “cons are cons” and “libs are libs”

      15. You sure about that?

        I count at least 5 times you said “cons are cons” and “libs are libs”

      16. You sure about that?

        I count at least 5 times you said “cons are cons” and “libs are libs”

      17. You sure about that?

        I count at least 5 times you said “cons are cons” and “libs are libs”

      18. You sure about that?

        I count at least 5 times you said “cons are cons” and “libs are libs”

      19. You sure about that?

        I count at least 5 times you said “cons are cons” and “libs are libs”

      20. You sure about that?

        I count at least 5 times you said “cons are cons” and “libs are libs”

      21. You sure about that?

        I count at least 5 times you said “cons are cons” and “libs are libs”

      22. You sure about that?

        I count at least 5 times you said “cons are cons” and “libs are libs”

    2. “1) He has asserted that he doesn’t really care what people think of him or his ideas.
      2) He has asserted that he comments for his own pleasure.”

      Trueman is a worthless piece of protoplasm who hopes to see his name somewhere other than his pathetic blog.
      You are welcome to waste time engaging him; most here insult him and move on.

  120. why are you giving publicity to this piece of lying anti-male sexist bollocks masquerading as research?

  121. The headline is misleading. THis is only relevant to corporate law firms. I work in IT and the last two companies I worked at are owned by right wing republicans. We have gays, women all promoted on an equal basis. If anything, one of our VPs is an incompetent woman proving that an incompetent woman can get promoted just as easily as an incompetent guy in my firm. I am not a conservative. And even if I find this headline to be ridiculous.

    1. “I work in IT and the last two companies I worked at are owned by right wing republicans”

      Did they hire this gay/women freak show themselves or pay someone else to?

      1. Sounds like you don’t like the conclusion since it doesn’t fit your narrative

      2. Sounds like you don’t like the conclusion since it doesn’t fit your narrative

      3. Sounds like you don’t like the conclusion since it doesn’t fit your narrative

      4. Sounds like you don’t like the conclusion since it doesn’t fit your narrative

      5. Sounds like you don’t like the conclusion since it doesn’t fit your narrative

      6. Sounds like you don’t like the conclusion since it doesn’t fit your narrative

      7. Sounds like you don’t like the conclusion since it doesn’t fit your narrative

      8. Sounds like you don’t like the conclusion since it doesn’t fit your narrative

      9. Sounds like you don’t like the conclusion since it doesn’t fit your narrative

      10. Sounds like you don’t like the conclusion since it doesn’t fit your narrative

      11. Sounds like you don’t like the conclusion since it doesn’t fit your narrative

      12. Sounds like you don’t like the conclusion since it doesn’t fit your narrative

      13. Sounds like you don’t like the conclusion since it doesn’t fit your narrative

      14. Sounds like you don’t like the conclusion since it doesn’t fit your narrative

      15. Sounds like you don’t like the conclusion since it doesn’t fit your narrative

      16. Sounds like you don’t like the conclusion since it doesn’t fit your narrative

      17. Sounds like you don’t like the conclusion since it doesn’t fit your narrative

      18. Sounds like you don’t like the conclusion since it doesn’t fit your narrative

      19. Sounds like you don’t like the conclusion since it doesn’t fit your narrative

      20. Sounds like you don’t like the conclusion since it doesn’t fit your narrative

      21. Sounds like you don’t like the conclusion since it doesn’t fit your narrative

      22. Sounds like you don’t like the conclusion since it doesn’t fit your narrative

      23. Sounds like you don’t like the conclusion since it doesn’t fit your narrative

      24. Sounds like you don’t like the conclusion since it doesn’t fit your narrative

      25. Sounds like you don’t like the conclusion since it doesn’t fit your narrative

      26. Sounds like you don’t like the conclusion since it doesn’t fit your narrative

      27. Sounds like you don’t like the conclusion since it doesn’t fit your narrative

      28. Sounds like you don’t like the conclusion since it doesn’t fit your narrative

      29. Sounds like you don’t like the conclusion since it doesn’t fit your narrative

      30. Sounds like you don’t like the conclusion since it doesn’t fit your narrative

      31. Sounds like you don’t like the conclusion since it doesn’t fit your narrative

      32. Sounds like you don’t like the conclusion since it doesn’t fit your narrative

      33. Sounds like you don’t like the conclusion since it doesn’t fit your narrative

      34. Sounds like you don’t like the conclusion since it doesn’t fit your narrative

  122. “We found that this gender gap gets smaller when male bosses are more liberal,

    Liberals have a sexist bias against men. Duh. Who didn’t know this?

    “In general, women are much less likely to be promoted, and much more likely to leave their firms,”

    Yeah. Maybe the causation goes from being more likely to leave to not getting promoted, instead of from not getting promoted to leaving.

    1. “Maybe the causation goes from being more likely to leave to not getting promoted, instead of from not getting promoted to leaving.”

      More muddled conservative thinking. Not getting promoted should be about your job performance, no matter what others of your sex do.

      1. Actually, it’s called logic. It’s hard to find a data set that doesn’t show women working fewer hours, taking more sick days and vacation days, and having less experience and less relevant degrees. The vast majority of disparity between men and women are explained by these confounding variables, and sometimes the disparity tips in the opposite direction (e.g. one study found that young urban professional women earned about 8% more than men).

        In short, when doing a regression analysis, be wary of multi-colinearity.

  123. Still waiting for mtrueman to:

    1. Define what “cons being cons” means
    2. Define what “libs being libs” means
    3. Back up the claim that cons don’t tolerate women in the work place
    4. Back up claim that cons don’t hire women

    TIA

    1. “Still waiting for mtrueman to:”

      while waiting why not amuse us with more repeats?

      1. Whoops my bad. Please answer and back up your claims.

        Thanks man

        1. “Please answer and back up your claims.”

          My claim that conservatives are more conservative than liberals and liberals are more liberal than conservatives? What kind of back up do you feel you need?

          1. So, you assume it is a physical impossibility that self-identified liberals actually discriminate in favor of women? And that maybe it isn’t that conservatives are gender biased, but simply lack the enthusiasm for affirmative action their progressive counterparts have? Note that the article Brown describes says nothing to demonstrate that male bosses are discriminating against female employees. They merely made a comparison between two groups; which (if either) of those groups is making decisions irrespective of employee gender is not even mentioned. You just seem to tacitly assume what’s going on.

      2. Typically one looks to provide substance to their thoughts. Fyi

  124. Meanwhile, in academia, a significant fraction of tenure-track positions are essentially ‘white males need not apply’ type jobs. No doubt, an article on that will be coming out any day now.

  125. I came here expecting a good comment-boner typical of an ENB article – instead my dick is all wimpy.

  126. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..
    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.WorkPost30.com

  127. Do you want to earn from home by working basic work using your desktop or laptop for 4 to 6 h on daily basis, get paid 75 bucks an hour ql and get a paycheck every week and choose yourself your working time?

    ——– http://www.workprospects.com

  128. It’s opinion based in the margin of error, typical among academics hell bent on social justice. I’m sticking this into the same box as the “women make 72 cents on the dollar compared to men” claim.

  129. Those are some tiny differences…

  130. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Click This Link inYour Browser…

    ????[] http://www.center90.com

  131. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Click This Link inYour Browser…

    ????[] http://www.center90.com

  132. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.workpost30.com

  133. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Click This Link inYour Browser…

    ????[] http://www.HomeSalary10.Com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.