Is HP chief's demise setback for women?

A marginal yet high-profile factor

The question was bound to come up: If Carly Fiorina were a man, would the outcome of her turbulent tenure as chief executive of Hewlett-Packard have been different?

Most management specialists say no. They contend that the company's misguided acquisition of Compaq and sluggish performance would have taken down any chief executive, of either sex.

And many note that Hewlett-Packard has tried hard to avoid any taint of sex discrimination; one woman, Ann Livermore, a respected Hewlett executive, is a possible candidate to replace Fiorina, and another, Patricia Dunn, is the nonexecutive chairman of Hewlett's board.

Still, the specialists say, it is naïve to pretend that Fiorina's downfall will not have an impact on women's aspirations. Her sex, they say, has intensified the spotlight on the event and appeared to give those who look skeptically at women in high places more arguments for their position.
<snip>

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/02/14/business/women.html

A man wasn't even in the running.

HP as a company is very progressive on gender.

Given that the number of men who mis-manage their companies far exceeds the women, it shouldn't be an issue. BUT: given the very small number of women who are CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, she can't help but get some undue scrutiny. (Also: Remember Jill Barad of Mattel?)

The loss of one woman at the top doesn't mean a loss for all women any more than her success translated into an end to the discrimination that all women continue to face.

Don't listen to the macho morons. They really don't know what they're talking about. Not now. Not ever.

(or race) Why doesn't GWB's poor performance and bad ideas and War crimes make people say: "Euwwwwww! Not another white man for president."

HP was doing bad. I've seen it here on the boards where people have said "Used to love HP. Now I wouldn't touch it with someone else's 10 foot pole." She's messed up that company for 6 years. They should have cut her loose ages ago. Not because she's a woman, but because she obviously was promoted to the level of her incompetence.

The fact that this question is even being asked is a sign that the gender bigots (a la Larry Summers of Harvard and his defenders) are out there ready to latch onto any little thing to justify mistreatment of professional women.

I don't know if this person messed up the company or not. That is irrelevant. Male CEOs are fired every day, but are those setbacks for all male CEOs?

--Peter

the quotes and speeches i have read from her make her sound fairly imperious.
But what did Ken Lay do to Enron? Bernard Ebbers to Worldcom? The Tyco stuff. How many women in the Keating 5? And so forth. It's total bullshit.

with Meg Whitman CEO of eBay and Donna Dubinsky the founder of Palm, and the numerous women equity partners in the Silicon Valley "Power" law firms and "power" venture capital firms.

Silicon Valley and IT is the most blood thirsty, Darwinian, meritocracy in the American economy.