It hasn’t been all that long since the c u l t u r e of a company has devolved into a more mob-friendly, group-think environment. In other words, the esteem for plurality played-off its own death march a while back. So, it shouldn’t be such a thick shock to one’s hypothalamus when they read headlines blasted double-barrel style across the Internet when the “innocent” girl pop-vulture based narrative hits the fail button H A R D. The ideation of Theranos born within the mentally-disturbed confines of Elizabeth Holmes comes straight out of your typical East Palo Alto, California dust house. Whomsoever thought this bitch was heaven-sent had to be dumb-rich–and malevolent. We on this side of the intelligent game couldn’t care-for-a-less successful stint fairy tale featuring a Vanna White-heifer getting “to the bag” quicker than an NYC-drug dealer stylin’ in the ’80s. To those who could see Theranos for what it is knew Holmes was dead in the water from the get-go–then again, that’s for those of us who could see Theranos for what it was–rubbish.

For a time, she charmed the world, with a promise of miraculous performances those on the intelligent side of the game deemed as “whaaaaaaa?“. I mean, she had everybody on her team: Kissinger….and some other people who naturally chase after anything that seems non-complex. This is typical effrontery when we’re confounded in a social climate that deliberately overlooks the engine of cross-cultural inference but that’s the signature steps of approach taken by bureaucratic feet. It’s imperative that the scene never changes; can’t stand the alternative face representative of the current image of potential success. It’s alien to the establishment, and if the powers that be can’t maintain a white male presence then the second-order will get pushed to the forefront.

Theranos’ pain points were insignificant especially when their leader’s considered “magnificent” in an era that never existed–in the first place. This is the period of extreme polarization, so you’d think the chastisement would come with the swiftness but the life of Holmes is the moron’s movie and the overall plot is to spoil her, not ruin the villianess. Her “ending” ain’t the standard fare death scene. She gets to live on for the sequel, so to cast your stones in attempt to strike the false idol of CEO Holmes makes you come-off like the Pharisee. She’s a character in the Western world’s Bible. Holmes’ is America’s darling Mary Magdalene; someone whose identity has been “mistaken” for someone else but whom is actually surrounded by wealth and fit to die with the same smile she willed to get VCs to empty their wallets and pour millions into Theranos’ lie.

The strategy of fooling people into opening their bleeding hearts even wider than they already are is of olden cry. You create this atmosphere of inclusion and fun, setting the emotional trap while you hide behind the bushes to collect the kill. Aside from Photoshop effects middling into the affair of age in order to offset the wrinkling pulls and stretches on her face, Sheryl Sandberg, Zuckerberg’s right-hand, Botoxed feminine appeal and fledgling chief operating officer at Facebook, who brings Girl Scout-ecstaticism and gender-cheerleading to the company. You can study the neurosis in Sandberg’s countenance and apply a numerical unit to the copious amount of insensitivity that pours forth. She manages a company centered on the money generated from a website where the focus is deadlock on the user’s gullible association with social deceit and forging friendships based on fake sophistication. Call it “consumer miscalculation” if you want. Sandberg, to me, was supposed to be missioned with bringing business etiquette, business ethic and social panáche to Facebook. Additionally, an executive alternative to Zuckerberg’s ice-chill iceberg persona.

As a chief operating officer, your skill (singular) in facilitating authority throughout the organization is suppose to be efficient; not serviceable [this is why I don’t give a care in the world about the chief financial officer being promoted to the COO position or “carrying” the position in conjunction with being the head over financial]. See, the skill of being efficient in execution of order is in decline and has resulted in chaotic behavior that hasn’t been in check (i.e., Black people on Facebook being thrown in “Facebook jail” all because they speak out against white supremacy and bring race relations in the U.S. to light). To lay in the cut and relax in the arms of inherent cynicism while Rome burns communicates to the general world over (and the continent of FB with its fabricated population of 2.1 billion) that Sheryl’s position is a failed stunt performed for the sake of being seen as goofy and an ugly accident.

Girlin’ it up to align her feminist chutzpah with Michelle Obama and Oprah Winfrey with the same signature newborn smirk that seduced Mark to make his decision as to who his babysitter would be, worked out to be a deceptively keen strategy. The problem I see is that the impression she’s leaving the world with will resonate as nothing more than a “least important” artifact on Millennial consciousness. She has secured her status as an integral part of the bomb that detonated on social interaction, awareness and relationship-building. Facebook is all Mark has to offer, so unless Sheryl’s got some new test of nerves sitting idly by in her unmeasurable mental parameters that can only be contrasted with that of IBM’s Ginni Rometty, Facebook failing is the death knell. Keep it erudite, Sheryl.

---

Alright, time to hit the pause button so I can be a bit forthright for a second. I’m not hating on women [in leadership roles] but as suggestively-themed as the title to this page is, I can see how the reader (honorable subscriber / viewer / visitor / gayfer-ass plagiarizer) can take my omnidimensional perspective and just run with their emotions so I’ll just say that my overall viewpoint on women are nurturers [out of chaos]. I do not see them as builders, however, probably the closest to a “builder” would be Sheryl Sandberg, although she comes-off as someone who’s more prone to constructing order rather laying the foundation [an architect] of a business. Hence the reason why I referenced her as a “babysitter” in the prior perspective. Let’s move on.

Business ethic aplomb in the American context isn’t exactly absent, it’s just on vacation. In walks GM’s Mary Barra through the door. Now, if you were to do a case study on the environs of your more notable automobile market juggernauts, you’ll run across General Motors. If you were to look up “incompetent leadership”, you might see the name Mary Barra; if not for the sake of transactional ridicule but definitely for the meaning behind deliberate misdirection–deliberate misdirection of capital commitment. Locked in a similar stasis as her handshake-partner, Donald Trump, she’s a setback not a progressive icon in the name of business.

I’ll give credit where credit is due. Not changing plans on production plants–and standing firm on that decision–is commendable, especially when the laws of economics say you can’t do a damn thing any god-damn way. Economics, not even a real science, is at the very least, a mechanism that ensures that you’re firing on all cylinders–and for Mary Barra, that is extremely crucial. There are orders of magnitude when it comes varying levels of economic activity / growth, specifically to wit, costs. In the case of General Motors (and why Borg-like locusts Americans are so fixated on Detroit “makin’ a comeback”), labor costs, is your optimum expense. So, how does the law of economics (that “invisible hand”) fall into play? Answer: A company the likes of GM moves their plant production operation over to India in order to reduce labor costs. This isn’t done necessarily to take away “your” jobs, then again, who is it that cares about “your” jobs? No one is entitled to a “job” and “jobs” have nothing to do with your country’s GDP. The reason why “your” jobs are flocking to the bosoms of other countries is because capital has an inherent need to expand–and capital–in the form of labor [capital]–can better expand outside of the United States, preferably in the Indian Ocean Basin because the labor costs are substantially lower than they are in the United States. Explain how “Bruce” at Lockheed Martin at his current wage base of $45 an hour can compete against some dot-head working in Bangalore, in the same capacity, with the same exact duties and responsibilities, making $1.25 an hour? It doesn’t matter how hard Trump cries, manufacturing ain’t coming back to the U.S. for a long, long time. That ain’t Barra’s fault.

What makes Mary Barra look dumb is no different than what makes IBM’s Ginni Rometty look even dumber–willful ignorance, specifically when it comes to this thing people are so encumbered with: artificial intelligence. Not only is the costs associated with the “autonomous” vehicle stratospheric, but the introduction of new technology for which there are no transferable skills would induce wage inflation. The fact that manufacturing favors the wage floor overseas spells danger for a multinational corporation the likes of a “Big Three” [GM], so how are you going to be the face of implementing “autonomous” driving? Sorry, but artificial intelligence, machine learning and “automation” do not qualify as “new technology”. So the man-power, the costs of that man-power in order to produce whatever “new technology” that’s needed to cover a labor force the magnitude of 15+ million American workers, it ain’t happening. Someone needs to tell Mary Barra–heralded as GM’s “first female CEO”–that the costs associated with “autonomous” driving comes at a highly-expensive bar for implementation, not to mention the costs of research and development.

---

Never have I ever been, voluntarily or involuntarily, exposed to such shallow perceptions to technological implementation–or the technologies themselves. Thankful enough, Mary hasn’t adopted the asexual affinity towards the gamine look and kept her hair length that helps to accentuate her femininity and “the look of a woman“, however, it doesn’t take away from optional aloofness when it comes to harboring a spirited understanding of the economical seesaw governing the 3% of publicly-traded corporations that currently house the employment of nearly 9 million Americans (2019). The gender-grab is a gross misconception and I have to wonder if it’s necessary to attempt to measure Barra’s mental averageness with titanium calipers that GM will have to purchase on my behalf. The sub-cultural guttural cry for more women-in-STEM smells like a yearning for immigration reform and most likely is reflected in today’s social climate, illustrating distrust amongst the American-brain (FBA intelligentsia).

Nothing makes any of the three women focus as the center of attention in this article more notable than their pining to be indexed to the social experiment of popularity. Aggregate them as public figures and that’ll be the only consensus which in turns appropriates them as prime candidates to meet all prerequisites for the cultural meeting with the media elite so they can speak their promises to the universal truth that they aren’t ready to interpret. The language is an unknown pattern, unrecognizable for us mere mortals. A lesser form gets cannibalized by a higher form. The roles of leadership are exemplified as ratio-relationships, which are, symbolically global anxieties themselves; non-entities disguised as patches for quaint celebration that are uncomplicatedly social parameters yet to be defined by someone who doesn’t hold a professorship at some Ivy League-institution. The desire to have more women in leadership positions is how the fairer sex intends to embark on the journey to reach the world of female independence achieved. As a man on the outside looking in, it’s a chick-flick nightmare.

---

D E S M O N D | D T O™