I don't think , her being a woman was the sole reason she lost her job, even though it played a role( albeit a crucial one). Great post guys, it just remind me that qualities such as assertiveness, ability to command respect and trust are as important as technical skills, specially for women, minorities. Just the nature of the business, a snippet at the reality of wall street!!
If the roles were reversed she'd have done the same to him without hesitation. Heck, put me in that position and I wouldn't hesitate. Nothing personal, purely business. The ones who reach that level tend to be sociopaths -- intelligent, articulate, personable, charismatic, but utterly devoid of real human feelings.
At some point this topic might be discussed. For example, those who are good at math tend to suffer disproportionately from Asperger's syndrome (reportedly 25% of Cambridge math undergrads). I suspect that if there's some way of measuring sociopathic inclinations, math and programming people will also be disproportionately represented.
Though the writer assumes a silly moralising tone and doesn't really understand what sociopaths are like at root (might as well criticise a tiger for being a carnivore). Here is his account of the qualities of a sociopath:
Glib, superficially charming, often highly verbal
Promiscuous sexual behavior
Manipulative and cunning
High sense of entitlement
Lacks a sense of moral responsibility or moral conscience
Callousness, lack of empathy
Lying without remorse, shame or guilt
Interested only in their personal needs or desires, without concern for other people
Except for the sexual proclivity, which is irrelevant, these are all useful qualities in the dog-eat-dog world we live in.
This statement is either nonsensical or tautological, depending on how you interpret it. Nothing wrong--in whose eyes? In the eyes of a sociopath? Of course not--he operates purely pragmatically, never in terms of intrinsic right and wrong. In the eyes of someone with a "traditional" morality? I think you've already answered that one:
the writer assumes a silly moralising tone and doesn't really understand what sociopaths are like at root (might as well criticise a tiger for being a carnivore).
The question gets interesting when you consider whether the tiger can choose not to be a carnivore--or if an herbivore can choose to start eating meat. Either way, the issue is more about behaviorism than morality.