My experience with actual top corporate leadership has been limited outside of extremely formal contexts, but I went to a reasonably elite MBA school, and most of my classmates went on to corporate work. None are CEOs of Fortune 500 companies yet (I follow practically the whole class on LinkedIn), but I believe some are on that path. There are some CFOs and COOs of smaller public companies now, and some have been promoted to impressive-sounding titles within middle management at various megacorps.
My sense of this class of person is that most of them have a fairly high IQ, but they’re intellectually incurious, mostly inclined to ask one question and one question only: “How is a successful businessman expected to comport himself?” and then mirror that personality as best as they can. I’ll also say they seemed to be the type of person who, at least in that stage of life, was drawn to centers of money and power, whose eyes glimmered at the bright lights of places like NYC. I already knew at that age that I wanted to be as far away from places like NYC as possible.
I met several people who had more mental horsepower than I did, but no one who was nearly as curious about the world as I was (or at least no one who was prepared to admit it). We never even talked politics, though admittedly the Great A-Wokening was just getting underway then. The culture was very surface-level, very dedicated to “Rolodex-building” as the old-timers say, so you wanted to have fun with people, not alienate them with controversy.
Wokeness has rendered it nearly impossible to strike up candid conversations with new acquaintances. For purposes of self preservation it is at the very least necessary to put out feelers. Mentioning Joe Rogan is one approach I’ve gotten a lot of utility out of. If the person recoils, talk about the weather–though even that’s a precarious subject anymore–until the first opportunity to bail on the conversation arises and then bolt. If they can’t handle an open-minded moderate liberal with a huge audience, they will be nothing but trouble.
This is unlike undergrad, where many of us were curious about the world and would get into deep conversations and debates outside class, maybe even engaging the professor outside class. In MBA school, unlike undergrad, everyone generally assumed the profs had little to teach them since they’re academics and not businesspeople.
Though again, maybe a lot of that was stage of life. Some of these people might have been more curious as undergrads, and maybe after MBA school they matured in a different direction. But I never really lost my curiosity, which might be part of what makes fatherhood so enjoyable. Sometimes I can relate better to kids and their 10,000 questions than all the adults who stopped asking any.
The vicarious experience of rediscovering the world through the eyes of a child is one of life’s greatest joys. Don’t lose your playfulness.
All the stuff about, say, body acceptance is really Mean Girls advice, on some level. They don’t do that with their own bodies, but in order to make themselves feel good-i.e, not for the other person-they’ll tell that crap to someone who might subliminally be looking for support for actual, positive changes, yet are too weak to do on their own. It’s the ultimate passive-aggressive subversion of a potential rival. If you truly care about someone, love someone, you’ll want them to become your equal, or even get better than you, rather than reserving them for permanent satellite status.
Enabling is not ennobling, it’s ignoble.
Androphile offers a disillusioned insider’s perspective on some of the dynamics at play among the often disparate identities lumped together under the LGBT umbrella:
Although I am now quite withdrawn from the social and political gay world, I was heavily involved for years. My anecdotal take.
L and G often have very friendly social ties but as groups they are always in tension. For lesbian feminists, gay men are still men and just as “problematic.” Lesbians are far fewer in number than gay men but have outsized power. After all, we had to put the L first just because of that…
Adding the B was, if I recall, scoffed at by the men but supported by the women. Since so many lesbians I knew had a much more fluid erotic interest, no surprise. It was a non-event.
L G and B are all about sexual orientation, the focus of your sexual desire. And despite the effeminacy of some gay men and the mannishness of some gay women, it was males who were males who liked males and females who were females who liked females.
It was the adding of the T that turned the whole construct into a dog’s breakfast. I, a man who found the male form, head to toe, a thing of jawdropping wonder, was supposed to be part of a “community” with males who wanted to castrate themselves and have breast implants? I’d rather go to hell.
Now the only sexual link in this bizarre camp of ever-expanding letters is hostility, yes, hostility, to the idea either of binary gender or heterosexuality. It stinks and I want nothing to do with it.
LGBTQWTF: a sexual Yugoslavia.
As for the Borg-like leftist political posing and alliance, the clinging to victim status when they have won every battle, and the hostility toward masculinity outside the gym… don’t, as they say, get me started.