Scientific Evidence that Men and Women are Designed Differently





Date CEO

Shares (millions)

Price/ share

Current Market Capitalization ($ millions)

Market High

Total Loss

($ millions)


Carly Fiorina








Anne Mulcahy








Patricia Russo








Andrea Jung








Marce Fuller










*Data as of August 30, 2002

This $208 billion dollar loss is a 76% reduction in the value of the above five corporations' stock, from a market capitalization of $273 billion to $65 billion, since they appointed women as CEOs.

Compare this to the 34% loss in the NYSE, and the "mere" $70 billion loss at Enron which has captivated the jewsmedia's attention ad infinitum.

Avon Products

Andrea Jung became CEO in November 1999.

mir2.gif (6947 bytes)


Anne Mulcahy became CEO on August 1, 2001.

xrx.gif (8265 bytes)

Lucent Technologies

Patricia Russo became CEO on January 7, 2002

lu.gif (8037 bytes)


Marce Fuller became CEO in October 2001.

mir.gif (5881 bytes)


Hewlett Packard

Carly Fiorina became CEO in July 2000, bans Easter Holiday August 6, 2000.

hpq3.gif (6587 bytes)


Spherion Corporation

Cinda A. Hallman becomes CEO on June 3, 2002

sfn.gif (8084 bytes)


Mattel Corporation

Conversely, while the above corporations were adding women to their CEO ranks and losing hundreds of billions of dollars, Mattel was firing Jill-The fact is that I worked with a man, and that man is no longer here.  Somehow it then gets said that I don't get along with men-Barad, their first woman CEO and increasing their stock value 2.6 fold.  When she was fired in February 2000, Mattel's stock market value skyrocketed from $9 to $23.  If just firing one woman CEO would cause Mattels' stock value to increase $6 billion, then the above five corporations firing the women CEO's who lost their stockholders $208 billion should expect to at least recover this loss and raise their stock market capitalization back to $273 billion, for a 4.2 fold gain.

mattel.jpg (18033 bytes)

In addition, such an increase in these five industry leaders should have had a parallel effect in the stock market in general.

A Loss 42 TIMES Greater than Enron

By comparison, the $70 billion Enron loss which has captured all media attention as of late is only a third of what these girls cost their stock holders, IF this is correct.  The final loss to Enron employees was less than $5 billion, so these gals cost American stockholders more than 42 TIMES the Enron loss.

enron.jpg (23039 bytes)


Women Entrepreneurs, Inc. Overstates Contribution of Women SIXTEEN FOLD

As if to highlight the absurdity of permitting women like Jill-The fact is that I worked with a man, and that man is no longer here.  Somehow it then gets said that I-don't-get-along-with-men-Barad to have power and authority over the men who made their companies successful, Women Entrepreneurs, Inc., makes the following ludicrous, unsupported, and completely unfounded public statement on their web site:

"As of 2004, there are an estimated 10.6 million privately-held firms in the U.S. that are 50% or more women-owned, accounting for nearly half (48%) of all privately-held firms. These firms generate $2.46 trillion in sales and employ 19.1 million people nationwide."

A mild sanity check will tell you that 19.1 million employees, most of them part-time and women who constitute less than 14% of the labor force, cannot produce 25% of GDP. A quick check with the US Census Bureau's 1997 Economic Census will tell you that what Women Entrepreneurs think women contribute to the economy is SIXTEEN TIMES (16X) greater than what they actually contribute.

womenceos.gif (9594 bytes)

Furthermore, we have this from the Census Bureau itself, an organization very easy even for women to find, especially with the internet:


Women owned 6.5 million nonfarm U.S. businesses in 2002, employing 7.1 million persons and generating $939.5 billion in business revenues. These women-owned firms accounted for 28.2 percent of all nonfarm businesses in the United States, 6.4 percent of their employment and 4.2 percent of their receipts. The 2002 Survey of Business Owners (SBO) defines women-owned businesses as firms in which women own 51 percent or more of the interest or stock of the business. The data in this report were collected as part of the 2002 Economic Census from a large sample of all nonfarm businesses filing 2002 tax forms as individual proprietorships, partnerships, or any type of corporation, and with receipts of $1,000 or more. Table A (xls 19kb) shows the number of firms and revenue for all U.S. businesses in 2002 by gender of ownership. In addition to the 6.5 million majority women-owned firms, there were 2.7 million equally male-/female-owned firms with $731.7 billion in receipts.Women Summary of Findings

Rather than contributing $2.46 TRILLION to the economy, the total payroll from women owned firms is less than 5% of GDP. How could an organization which seeks to enhance the credibility of women as managers and administrators be so misled by their own hype, particularly when access by internet to the actual Census Bureau data is so quick and easy?  Isn't there even one woman in that organization who could have taken A MERE FIVE minutes to check out the data before over-representing women's contribution to GDP by SIXTEEN FOLD, making them look more foolish than ever?

To underscore that question, the answer is in another Census Bureau study which illustrates that:

bulletAdding women to the ownership of a man owned business reduces its potential receipts by $323,300 or 55.5%. 
bulletAdding men to the ownership of a woman owned business increases its potential receipts by $108,100 or 71.5%. 
bulletCompletely removing women from ownership increases potential receipts by $431,400 to four fold greater than a woman owned business with no men owners present.

This sixteen fold over-representation of the contribution of women businesses to the economy is symbollic of the hyper-inflated opinion feminists have of themselves.  The actual data which shows that removing women from ownership of small businesses increases receipts four fold, and removing women as CEO's from major corporations increases stock values four fold, makes feminists the laughing stock of nations, the bone heads of history, and an abomination before God.

But it also makes HP's management a laughing stock.  Do these folks even look at Census Bureau studies like the above before making multi-billion dollar mistakes like hiring Carly as CEO, then letting her get away with replacing Easter holiday with Martin Luther communist King Day?  HP could have saved their shareholders billions of dollars if they'd realized that this objective study of the effects of women in management from the Census Bureau is far more credible than words out of the mouth of dress-for-success Carly Fiorina.  How could she ever have convinced the board to take such a risk, and make such a huge mistake?

To HP's credit, they finally fired Carly and replaced her with a man who was hired by NEC at about the same time Carly was hired by HP--and who took NEC's stock in exactly the opposite direction that Carly took HP's.  The factor by which NEC's stock increased is equivalent to the factor by which HP's stock plunged, putting Japan squarely in the driver's seat of this industry.