THE END OF MERITOCRACY AND EQUALITY FOR MEN IN BRITAIN'S WORKPLACES

The publication this week of Lord Davies of Abersoch's government backed report on getting more women into British boardrooms means the end of meritocracy and equality in Britain's Boardroom. An issue this site has been covering for some time. No longer will talent, qulaifictaions or dedication matter, your gender is all that counts.

If you are a man - your only chance of getting onto a board is if the female quota has been fulfilled. If it has not you can be the best business person in the world, but you still won't get on. That is the end of meritocracy and equality for men in the Britain's companies.

The report states that UK listed companies in the FTSE 100 should be aiming for a minimum of 25% female board member representation by 2015. Davies recommends that FTSE 350 companies should be setting their own, challenging targets and expects that many will achieve a much higher figure than this minimum. 

The explicit threat is that if the recommendations are not met British companies will be forced to do it and have quotas like those in Norway (40% of boards have to be women).

The issues it raises are clear - as stated there will be no such as meritocracy, gender is all that matters. Secondly, it is clear this government is as anti-male as the last one and is doing all it can to undermine and attack men.

This boardroom issue is basically another tactic to berate and undermine men to ensure they remain viewed by the metropolitan elite as second class citizens who are to be blamed for everything.

The report is very explicit in saying that the reason there are not as many women on a board as men is down to discrimination by men. But there is no evidence of this, and reports like those by Catherine Hakim  and the Institute of Leadership and Management (covered in the Daily Mail) have clearly shown that not all capable women want to be on the board. Some because they haven't got the drive, some want to stay at home and bring up a family, some  make other lifestyle choices and some just do not want all the hassle that comes with it.

Davies and others complain of Groupthink but all the clamour to support this is Groupthink of the worst kind. If you don't agree you are cast to the margins. Plus there is no evidence to suggest that more gender balanced boards are more successful.

Many very successful women also work in the public sector which is not affected by this. Theresa May  (Minister for Women) spins by saying that 51% of the population are women therefore implying that this should be reflected on boards in the private sector. But twice as many women (40%) work in the public sector than men so one of the reason there are less women on private sector boards is actually because they employ fewer. There is less of a pool to choose from. 

This fact is worth looking into more because it has not been taken into account because it does not play to the distorted picture Davies, May and others are spinning.

With the Government bringing in the measures of the last Government to ensure there is discrimination in getting a job (section 159 of the Equality Act 2010 which the government had campaigned against when in opposition) and now ensuring talented men will hit a quota ceiling there is no equality for men at either end of the job scale.

With educational standards far behind those of girls, men being stopped from getting into work or getting to the top and with young men now earning less than girls all because the government and the state actively discriminate men and boys, it is now clear:

British men are second class citizens by Order of the Government

Posted by Skimmington 

Media Coverage - BBC#1, BBC#2, Daily Mail#1, FT#1, Guardian #1, Guardian #2, FT#2 (Catherine Hakim quote), Independent#1, FT#3, Daily Mail#2 

Comments

[John Kimble]

Great piece, the issue of number of women in the public sector was especially interesting and it's true that no one ever mentions this.

If we should have quotas anywhere it should be for male teachers in primary schools given the way they are failing boys, though I personally would never support such sexism either way.

[fondueguy]

50% of the population are women... what about convicts, time woth kids, homeless, work related deaths.

Question, are feminists unable to look/acknowledge/care(?) about all the Men at the bottom of society because of hypergamy. Wtf is with this psychotic shit?!?

[Groan]

On reading the report two things I noticed. As you point out there is a lot of research exists on this but the report ignores almost all recent research. The second I'd that there is stuff about recruiting female directors from a "wider pool of talent" when you read on it means academics and public bodies. So far from helping women in general the talent pool appears to be the membership of the fawcett society. I suppose as the quangos diminish these particular women need new jobs. No wonder the director of the society was so keen when on Newsnight.

[tony moore]

Indeed, we could go on for a long time asking the very simple, very obvious questions that illustrate how "equality" legislation is a profoundly dishonest banner, given the real substance therein. Two more are:

Q1. Where is the clamour to see women equally well represented in low paid jobs that involve anti-social hours, unpleasant conditions and higher risks?

Q2. Who prospers most from the value created by the fruits of UK production? This question begs to know who benefits most from taxes AND earnings since over 50% of earnings are taxed and redistributed as social welfare and handouts. I hypothesise the slightly higher earnings of men - if they do indeed exist - are actually, therefore, a red herring, given the greater amount of subsidies received by women through health-care, benefits, state pensions and public services etc.

Simply, men are becoming - bit by bit - the new Jews of the west; the scapegoat for vindictive, envious others; thus the expedient target of the politically-opportunist. Just as many wars are now fought in cyberspace rather than battlefields, men face a cultural and economic suppression, rather than a physical one.

An elaborate and pernicious language has been developed to excuse people of their discrimination, such that false accusations and propoganda against men are acceptable discourse. It calls "fascism" "tolerace", it calls "discrimination" "equality" and it calls "meritocracy" "elitism". I'm afraid the reasoned, fact-based arguments you make on this site only evince your "ignorance"!

While sounding extreme, it really is the only model that fits the data. The key unanswered question is "Counter-strategies?" Come on guys, lets talk about this!

May I also suggest an interesting number: "100 million years". (It is the about the current difference in life-years, between men and women, caused by anti-male hatred in the UK today.)

[Groan]

Well I ,being critical of the conspiracy theories of the gender feminists, wouldn't want to subscibe to other such theories. I think you only have to look to envy and self interest to see the motivations of the self interested policies. In answer to you second question a report from the EU some years ago calculated that women's personal wealth is indeed greater than men's. There are the obvious transfers made through the tax and benefit system. Thera is also the legal assumption that the wife is co owner of matrimonial assets. Women also are bigger beneficiaries of inherited wealth, older husbands and men's shorter lifespan. Sadly I can't find the reference just now but if memory serves me right 55 percent of all personal wealth is held by women in the EU, with surprisingly little variation . More recently in recent examination of the female millionaires in britains top 200 the commonist sources of their wealth were first widowhood and second divorce. Very few were high earners or business owners or entrepreneurs the next wealthiest being entertainers.

[tony moore]

Thanks. V. interesting stats.

Q1) As for the "conspiracy theory", I understand what you mean. The broader explanation of this, which makes most sense to me at least, was that offered by Warren Farrell: We need a 'gender transition' movement.

However, there is a question on the transition from now to even the first step, of seeing men’s issues acknowledged. It would be ideal, of course, if we could recognise the inherited and un-necessary obligations placed on both sexes, from a prior industrial society, and act to rectify them, so people's lives were not dictated by birthrights.

This is where the desire for a reasoned discussion clashes somewhat with what might need to happen. That is, if history is anything to go by. Surely if we could appeal to such reason, that perspective would have emerged by now? Politicians hardly need more multivariate analysis about male health; or 'awareness raising' about fathers. I wonder, therefore, if the extent of entrenched political self-interest, invested in scapegoating or ignoring men, means we need to see vocal pioneers make noise, court attention and controversy and mobilise and aggregate opposition, before the reasonable position is found?

Such dynamics, characterising the diffusion of new ideas and ideologies, have shaped everything from feminism to the green movement and the anti-smoking consensus. I see no reason to suspect that the diffusion of the "rights of man" will be any different. (?)

Q2) I also wonder: Presumably, at some point, members of this site have written to MPs and the like, to ask why any of the other perspectives one could have on discrimination, aside "income", are omitted? (e.g. the perspective of equal wealth, equal access to healthcare, equal lifespan, equal access to children?).

I wondered what the response tends to be?

Q3. BTW, any way to register interest in membership here, given the email in the site doesn't work?

[Skimmington]

What email doesn't work Tony? There is no membership to the site.

[tony]

Hi,
The email under the search box, top left of the screen....

(I thought that there would be be some sort of membership - my mistake...)

[Groan]

Warren Farrell has great insight in his work. My great hope is in younger generations who expect equity and show resistance to current orthodoxy, often because it is counter to reality. Two key strategies of the marxists and its heresy gender feminism are "no platform" in which opposing views and controlling the language in use. So for instance in DV views that men may be victims is blotted out of text books, training , conferences (no platform) and the language used directs attention (wife beater, violence against women, gender violence, violence against women and girls(clever move linking tochildren). Both strategies have been used effectively to make opposing views appear maverick and even harmful. To counter this it is important influence language, such as "mancession" as a media shorthand for the fact recessions hit male employment and give what platform one can to an alternative view. This site is a small contribution to both. Just as fathers in the family courts, men's health, divorce, education and pensions are causing unrest I think positive discrimination in the workplace will add to unrest that needs platforms and language to develop a voice. As Warren and others observed one big block is the older(my) generation's chivalry so evident in out courts. Younger men and women expect more from women and rightly are irritated by privileges extended to some women,.