The point is, however, that Ivanka might have matched the rest with regard to the money she spent (or her dad spent) on clothes, hairstyle and cosmetics, but in all other respects she was an also-ran. The rest of the top table panel were highly successful women in the fields of banking and politics, and we all know what that means.
We’ve had it demonstrated time and again over the past few decades just how crooked the banking world is, and if there’s one mainstream profession even more crooked than banking, it’s politics. We’ve also had it explained to us by a leading psychologist that people who rise high in such professions mostly have high psychopathic tendencies because that’s what it takes to win.
So are these women real? Are they the sort we should be listening to? Why were there no places for female directors of subsidised theatres or charities who earn just about enough for a modest, subsistence-style living, or women who dedicate their lives to taking care of disabled kids and get paid even less?
It seemed to me that the message apparent in this seminar was that empowerment varies in direct proportion to psychopathic tendencies. Is that a good message to be sending to the women of the world? Is a world controlled by female psychopaths better than a world controlled by male ones?