Commission for Equality and Human Rights

Government 'Equalities' Office

Members of Parliament

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

« EQUALITY IN THE UK 2012 - A SPECIAL ADVISER FOR WOMEN BUT NO SPECIAL ADVISER FOR MEN | Main | TOM MARTIN TO DEBATE NUS WOMEN'S OFFICER »

Saturday, 25 February 2012

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Mike Buchanan

Thanks for raising this, it's a topic I'm really focusing on at the moment.

Proponents of 'improved' gender balance in the boardroom claim a positive link between increased female representation in the boardrom and corporate performance. It's a lie. Any apparent link is down to the best female executives being drawn to the most profitable i.e. highest paying firms (a modern echo of the historic reality that women are drawn to rich and powerful men).

There's only one study showing a causal link - a Uni of Michigan study into the impact of increasing female directors in Norway over 2004-8 - and the link was shown to be NEGATIVE.

In Dec 2010 the CBI issuds a report 'Room at the Top', asserting a positive link. Of the 14 people cited as supporting the conclusions 9 were women, and the 5 men (all chairmen of major British companies) were already on record as supporting more women on the board.

On my blog I have laid down challenges to a number of individuals on this matter include David Cameron (on record as being willing to introduce quotas if firms don't increase the number of women 'voluntarily'), John Cridland (Director General of the CBI), and Ilene Lang (President/CEO of Catalyst, an American feminist campaigning group). Not a shred of evidence has been forthcoming. We all know why.

This is nothing more nor less than an assault on the only wealth creating sector, for ideological reasons, supported by spineless and relentlessly pro-women and anti-men politicians (e.g. Cameron) for political advantage.

Mike Buchanan
http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com

Mike Buchanan

Assuming the 'board' in question was in a business rather in a public sector organisation, the move was, of course, positive discrimination and therefore illegal. I hope the individual excluded from the position sues their arses off.

Not that the small issue of illegality will stop these damnable people from operating 'below the radar' as usual.

30% is of course just a staging post to 50% and ultimately all-female boards. For a glimpse into what women will do given half a chance, I recommend Steve Moxon's 'The Woman Racket' for its coverage of women's strong preference to hire women rather than men, regardless of merit.

Mike Buchanan
http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Twitter

Blog powered by Typepad

Reading List