> Because, if you find it relevant what the sex of the board members that made that mistake was, how is that any better than the alleged sexism that McGovern ha

> Because, if you find it relevant what the sex of the board members that made that mistake was, how is that any better than the alleged sexism that McGovern had endured? You've done some subtle editorializing here to try and make your point stronger, allow me to correct it: > ultimately destroyed by men is not what I wrote, what I wrote is > ultimately destroyed by the men who overrode her decisions and opted to take the 'safer' route. They convey two very different ideas. The strawman that you wrote implies that I believe men, by virtue of their sex, are responsible for the companies failure. This is not the case. What I wrote implies that the board rejected her proposal because they thought they know better. Is it conceivable to you that this belief might have had something to do with the fact that she was a female CEO, formerly a housewife, in an exclusively male industry? Surely you can concede that identifying sexist behavior and committing sexist behavior are not equivalent.