巴菲特親筆撰文：美國繁榮，女性是關(guān)鍵
????1980年，沃倫?巴菲特在自己的50歲生日宴會上和《華盛頓郵報》已故首席執(zhí)行官凱瑟琳?格雷厄姆交談。
????來源：《財富》雜志
|
????本刊獨家專稿：伯克希爾哈撒韋（Berkshire Hathaway）董事長兼首席執(zhí)行官沃倫?巴菲特闡釋，為什么女性是美國繁榮發(fā)展的關(guān)鍵。 ????最近有很多文章都在探討女性和工作的問題，但在我看來，一個與此有關(guān)而且極其重要的問題卻一直沒有人提起。它關(guān)系到美國的未來。而對于美國的未來，我并不是個合格的樂觀主義者。此前我曾說過類似的話，現(xiàn)在我要說的是另一個觀點：我們的前景之所以如此美好，一個重要的原因就是女性。 ????首先我要說，1776年建國以來，美國的進步一直令人稱奇，堪稱前無古人。其中的秘密就在于，在美國的政治和經(jīng)濟體制之下，人的潛能得到了極大的釋放。因此，今天的美國人享用著豐富的產(chǎn)品和服務(wù)，而僅僅幾個世紀之前，人們還無法想象這樣富足的生活。 ????但美國人的潛能只發(fā)揮了不到一半，或者也就是差不多一半而已。在很多情況下，美國在邁向成功的過程中只動用了國內(nèi)一半的人才。在美國的歷史上，無論女性有什么樣的能力，大多數(shù)時間里她們都只能靠邊站。也就是最近幾年美國人才開始糾正這個錯誤。 ????雖然《獨立宣言》（the Declaration of Independence）主張“人人生而平等”，但男權(quán)主義很快就成為美國憲法的核心。憲法第二章中，全部39名男性憲法簽署人一再用“他”來指代總統(tǒng)，這很自然。玩撲克時，人們會把這種情況叫做“露出馬腳”。 ????最終，在1920年，也就是133年之后，美國憲法第十九修正案才賦予女性投票權(quán)，從而淡化了對女性的歧視。但這項修正案幾乎沒有改變美國人的態(tài)度和行為。受此影響，在第十九修正案通過61年后，美國最高法院才迎來了第一位女性法官桑德拉?戴?奧康納，而在她之前已有33名男性擔(dān)任過這個職務(wù)。 ????在這61年間，最高法院沒有女性法官候選人的情況受到過質(zhì)疑，而標準的回答僅僅是“沒有合格的人選”。選民的態(tài)度也大抵如此。1942年，我父親成為眾議員時，全部435名眾議員中只有8名女性；而整個參議院只有緬因州議員瑪格麗特?蔡斯?史密斯1名女性。 ????一旦自身利益受到變革的沖擊，當(dāng)權(quán)者自然會予以抵制。這樣的自保行為在企業(yè)界和政界比比皆是，就連宗教界也不例外。畢竟，誰會愿意讓頂尖職位的競爭者增加一倍呢？ |
????In an exclusive essay the Berkshire Hathaway (BRKA, Fortune 500)chairman and CEO explains why women are key to America's prosperity. ????In the flood of words written recently about women and work, one related and hugely significant point seems to me to have been neglected. It has to do with America's future, about which -- here's a familiar opinion from me -- I'm an unqualified optimist. Now entertain another opinion of mine: Women are a major reason we will do so well. ????Start with the fact that our country's progress since 1776 has been mind-blowing, like nothing the world has ever seen. Our secret sauce has been a political and economic system that unleashes human potential to an extraordinary degree. As a result Americans today enjoy an abundance of goods and services that no one could have dreamed of just a few centuries ago. ????But that's not the half of it -- or, rather, it's just about the half of it. America has forged this success while utilizing, in large part, only half of the country's talent. For most of our history, women -- whatever their abilities -- have been relegated to the sidelines. Only in recent years have we begun to correct that problem. ????Despite the inspiring "all men are created equal" assertion in the Declaration of Independence, male supremacy quickly became enshrined in the Constitution. In Article II, dealing with the presidency, the 39 delegates who signed the document -- all men, naturally -- repeatedly used male pronouns. In poker, they call that a "tell." ????Finally, 133 years later, in 1920, the U.S. softened its discrimination against women via the 19th Amendment, which gave them the right to vote. But that law scarcely budged attitudes and behaviors. In its wake, 33 men rose to the Supreme Court before Sandra Day O'Connor made the grade -- 61 years after the amendment was ratified. For those of you who like numbers, the odds against that procession of males occurring by chance are more than 8 billion to one. ????When people questioned the absence of female appointees, the standard reply over those 61 years was simply "no qualified candidates." The electorate took a similar stance. When my dad was elected to Congress in 1942, only eight of his 434 colleagues were women. One lonely woman, Maine's Margaret Chase Smith, sat in the Senate. ????Resistance among the powerful is natural when change clashes with their self-interest. Business, politics, and, yes, religions provide many examples of such defensive behavior. After all, who wants to double the number of competitors for top positions? |
-
熱讀文章
-
熱門視頻
